Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 18th December, 1936, for the Christmas Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBERS SWORN.

Several Members took and subscribed the Oath.

NEW WRIT.

New Writ for the Borough of St. Pancras (North Division), in the room of Captain Sir Ian Fraser, C.B.E. (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

LEGISLATION.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines when it is proposed to introduce legislation dealing with the proposed reorganisation of the coal-mining industry and with the proposed unification of royalties?

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines when the Coal Mines Bill will be introduced?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I regret that I am not in a position to make any announcement at present.

Mr. Griffiths: Am I to understand that the Government are abandoning the project of bringing in legislation on this matter?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member must understand what I have said in my reply.

ROYALTIES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of Mines the total amount paid in royalties, etc., in the coal-mining industry in the year ended 31st December, 1936, and the number of royalty owners who received royalties, etc., during the year; and whether he will give figures for each district separately?

Captain Crookshank: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:—

The estimated amounts paid by colliery owners in royalties and wayleaves (including the rental value of freehold mineral where worked by the proprietors) during 1936 are as follow:


District.
Amount.



£


Scotland
740,000


Northumberland
335,O00


Durham
723,000


South Wales and Monmouthshire
1,127,000


Yorkshire
762,000


North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire
482,000


South Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire
208,000


Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire
435,000


Other English Districts
219,000



5,031,000

It is estimated that there are now approximately 4,300 coal royalty owners (including working proprietors) in Great Britain.

HYDROGENATION.

Mr. G. Hardie: asked the Secretary for Mines why alterations had to be made of the Bergius system of hydrogenation at Billingham, and if, after such alterations, the Bergius interests still held the patent rights over the parts altered or improved?

Captain Crookshank: I am advised that the Bergius system, apart from the basic principle of converting coal to oils by the addition of hydrogen, was insufficiently developed by its originators for practical commercial operation, for which purposes new apparatus and methods had to be devised. The Bergius patents involved have practically all either lapsed or been abandoned. The British Bergius Syndicate, which originally held limited options over the British rights, was wound up 12 months before the Billingham plant was initiated. Such rights as it held had been taken over by I.C.I. and were ultimately pooled with all that company's other rights resulting from their independent work, and with the rights in hydrogenation of their Continental and American associates who incidentally had become the controlling holders of the original Bergius rights.

Mr. Hardie: Since the Government have given so much to Imperial Chemical Industries may I ask whether they hold any part of the rights in this new construction hydrogenation plant?

Captain Crookshank: I must ask the hon. Member to put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hardie: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) what number of tons of coal have been hydrogenated at Billingham; also the quantity of coal required to produce the hydrogen necessary for the treatment of one ton of coal; and the quantity of crude oil produced from the one ton treated;

(2) the number of gallons of crude oil produced by hydrogenation at Billingham, based, not on the one ton treated, but upon the total amount of coal used in the treatment of one ton of coal?

Captain Crookshank: While I am not in a position to give information in the full detail for which the hon. Member asks, I am able, by the courtesy of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, to furnish certain particulars concerning the working of the hydrogenation plant at Billingham in respect of 1936, the first complete calendar year of working, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hardie: May I ask whether it is not the case that the plant at Billingham has not yet reduced any coal by hydrogenation to an oil state?

Captain Crookshank: That seems to be a very technical question of which I should like to have notice. The hon. Member had better study the information which I have promised to give him.

Mr. Hardie: I think that I can anticipate the information I am going to get.

The particulars are as follow:


Petrol Production.
Tons.


Total Production of Refined Motor Spirit*
112,000



(about 33,600,000 gallons.)


Coal Consumption.



Coal Directly Hydrogenated
100,000


Additional coal used for all other purposes — steam raising, power generation, hydrogen production, ancillary both to direct coal hydrogenation and also to tar hydrogenation (approx.)
325,000


Total usage of all coals (approx.)
425,000


* The process can be used to produce various final products. At present the plant is used entirely to produce motor spirit. Crude oil being only an intermediate product, figures of its production would have no real significance in view of the various modifications possible at intermediate stages.

Mr. Louis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the approximate cost to the revenue of the Billingham hydrogenation plant since it was set up?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I am afraid that I have no further information than that contained in the answer given to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 15th December last by my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines.

Mr. Smith: Having regard to the success of this scheme at Billingham, will my right hon. Friend shortly be able to announce the erection of another similar plant in another part of the country?

Mr. Chamberlain: I do not think that arises on this question.

Mr. Hardie: Would it not be a good thing, before commencing any new plant, to know that this one is working and doing what was claimed for it?

DISABLEMENT CERTIFICATES, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of applications for certificates of disablement received by the medical board under the Various Industries (Silicosis) Schemes from among coal-miners in South Wales in the year ended 31st December, 1936; the number of certificates granted; the number of applications rejected; and the number of applications and certificates granted to anthracite miners in South Wales in the same period?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The number of applications for certificates of disablement from coalminers in South Wales during the year was 552. Certificates were granted in 268 cases and refused in 253 cases. Three hundred and eleven of the applications were from anthracite miners of whom 182 were certified and 115 refused.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men who have been refused certificates are all disabled, in consequence of having inhaled dust in the course of their occupation; and when do the Government propose to bring forward legislation to do elementary justice in the cases of men who lay down their lives in this industry?

Mr. Lloyd: The fact that a man has not been certified under this procedure does not necessarily prove that he is suffering from an occupational form of respiratory disease. He may be suffering from a form of respiratory disease which is not due to his occupation.

Mr. G. Griffiths: When may we expect the report of the committee which was appointed to go into this business some two years ago?

Mr. Lloyd: The Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council recently held a meeting. They decided, in the first instance, that they must come to a conclusion about the clinical entity of diseases other than silicosis from which miners suffer and they have arranged for clinical and radiological tests in a selected number of cases of miners showing symptoms of those diseases.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that, whatever may be the precise nature or name of the disease from which the men suffer, it is universally agreed that it is due to their occupation, will the hon. Gentleman consider whether the Order cannot be widened so as to include them?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry, but I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is pre-judging the results of the scientific and medical investigation to which I have referred.

Mr. Leach: Is the hon. Gentleman himself satisfied as to the justice of such an enormous number of refusals?

GRESFORD COLLIERY ACCIDENT.

Mr. G. Griffiths (for Mr. Batey): asked the Secretary for Mines, when he is to present the report of the commission appointed by him to inquire into the circumstances of the Gresford Colliery disaster?

Captain Crookshank: I have now received the report of the Commissioner and a report from each of the two assessors. These three reports are now being printed and they will be published together early in February.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it proposed that this House shall have an opportunity of discussing these reports upon this terrible calamity?

Captain Crookshank: That does not rest with me. The hon. Member must address that question to the proper quarter.

Mr. Lyons: In publishing the reports is it intended to include a verbatim report of the evidence given at these inquiries?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. I was referring to the report of the Commissioner and each of the two assessors.

Mr. Lyons: Is it intended at any time to put before the House a precise copy of the evidence that was tendered at those inquiries? May I have an answer to that question?

Mr. Speaker: It has already been answered.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Newfoundland?

Mr. Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the present position of Newfoundland?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): A report by the Commission of Government on Newfoundland affairs during 1936 is in preparation and will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. It is proposed that similar reports should in future be presented to Parliament annually, as early as possible in each year. In the meantime the main feature of conditions in the Island is that owing to an exceptionally poor fishery season and to the continuance of export difficulties, especially in the important markets of Italy and Spain, a large number of the fishing population continue to require relief at the present time. The commercial agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and Italy in November provides a substantial Italian quota for Newfoundland codfish, and it is hoped that this will result in some improvement in the local situation. The revenue returns are still favourable and show a slight improvement upon those for the corresponding months of last year.

Mr. Lunn: Is it a fact that 50 per cent. more persons are on relief in Newfoundland than a year ago, and why have not some of the main recommendations of the Amulree Commission been put into operation?

Mr. Lyons: Has there been any improvement in the general economic position during 1936?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the first supplementary is that it is not true that there has been an increase of 50 per

cent. in the number of those on relief over the corresponding figure of last year. There has been an increase for the reasons I have given, but it does not amount to anything like 50 per cent. With regard to the other question, the general economic condition of the country was not quite so good in 1936 as in 1935 largely because of the obstacles in the Italian and Spanish markets for fish on which the island is largely dependent. The financial position, on the other hand, is slightly better.

Mr. Lunn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the percentage increase in the number of those on relief? The Press of Newfoundland is definite in saying that it is 50 per cent.

Mr. MacDonald: The number of those on relief is 65,000, and that does not represent anything like a 50 per cent. increase.

Mr. Maxton: May I ask whether the scale of relief to the distressed fishermen of Newfoundland is still on the same miserable basis that it has been for the last two years?

Mr. MacDonald: The scale of relief to fishermen in Newfoundland has been increased by something like 25 per cent. since the commission came into operation. With regard to the other question, I do not wish to misstate anything, but the figure last year was just under 50,000.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any further statement to make as to the relations between this country and the Irish Free State?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. It has been agreed to continue for another year the trade arrangement concluded at the beginning of last year, subject to possible modifications of detail within the general framework of the arrangement. Discussions on some points of detail are now proceeding. As the House is aware, I had conversations with Mr. de Valera when he was in London last Thursday on a number of matters affecting relations between the Irish Free State and this country. I would emphasise that those talks were


informal, and that no formal negotiations are in progress. Arising out of the conversations certain matters are now under examination, and until that examination is complete I cannot say whether any further discussions are imminent. I would add that the United Kingdom Government are ready to take any opportunity which presents itself of reaching a satisfactory settlement on outstanding questions between the two countries.

Mr. Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend impressed on the Government of the Irish Free State that membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations implies not only readiness to share in the benefits but willingness to share in the obligations?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a matter which, of course, the Government have very much in mind.

Mr. Lunn: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has established contact with the Government of the Irish Free State, is he taking steps to maintain it and to make arrangements for further meetings?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that if the hon. Member will read the answer carefully, he will see that I have that in mind.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the political future of myself and my constituents is not one of the matters which he has under consideration?

Mr. Logan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the negotiations that have been going on, may I ask him whether he is aware of the lamentable state of trade on the Merseyside, and whether it is possible in these negotiations for the embargo on cattle to be taken off with a view to making the position in England better?

Mr. MacDonald: With regard to that question, the arrangement which we have agreed to renew has already brought considerable benefit to the trade of both countries, and I think the Merseyside has a share of that benefit. With regard to my hon. Friend's question, the position of the Government in this country is, of course, that any change in the relations

between the two Governments in Ireland would require the consent of both Governments.

Sir Arthur Michael Samuel: In the discussions that have taken place, has there been any discussion with regard to the default on the land annuities?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any Enabling Bill giving statutory powers for any section of the cotton industry will be brought in in the current Session?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): The Government programme of prospective legislation for the current Session does not include any such measure.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared favourably to consider an export bounty on cotton goods as the real remedy for the distress in the cotton districts of Lancashire and also in those getting coal, due to the greatly reduced demand with so many factories stopped?

Dr. Burgin: His Majesty's Government have constantly in mind the need to promote the cotton export trade by all appropriate means, and particularly by trade agreements. As regards the method of export bounty, I can add nothing to the replies given to my hon. Friend on previous occasions in answer to similar questions.

Mr. Chorlton: Can my hon. Friend give any more details of schemes proposed to aid cotton exports, in view of the large amount of unemployment?

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Louis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that certain industries, such as rivet-manufacture, are depressed; and, having regard to the gradual increased prosperity of the shipbuilding industry since 1932, when certain shipyard material was exempted from the import duties then otherwise imposed, will he now consider the withdrawal of such exemption?

Dr. Burgin: I am not aware that the industry of rivet-manufacture is depressed. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Smith: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he proposes to allow these exemptions to operate for an indefinite period or whether he proposes to investigate the conditions of the shipbuilding industry at an early date with a view to amendment?

Dr. Burgin: I think that the free entry of materials consigned to a registered shipyard is governed by Section II of the Import Duties Act, 1932, and I know of no proposal for altering that Section.

GERMANY (EXPORT TRADE ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give particulars, from the information his Department has, of the methods in which the German Government assist and subsidise their export trade; and in what manner German exporters are enabled to purchase blocked marks at a discount and obtain in exchange free marks at their full value?

Dr. Burgin: Detailed information regarding the methods employed by the German Government to assist their export trade is not available, but it is understood that assistance is given mainly by means of subsidies derived from a levy on industry in Germany. The method whereby exporters could obtain blocked marks at a discount is believed to have been replaced to a large extent by this levy scheme. For further information I would refer the hon. Member to the report issued by the Department of Overseas Trade entitled "Economic Conditions in Germany."

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the levy that is imposed on trade in Germany for the purpose of the subsidy?

Dr. Burgin: Not without notice.

MANUFACTURED GOODS (RETAINED IMPORTS).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the volume of the retained imports of manufactured goods in 1936 as compared with that in 1930 and 1932?

Dr. Burgin: Particulars of the volume of retained imports of manufactured goods in 1936 are not yet available. I will let my hon. Friend have the desired information as soon as the necessary calculations are completed.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not a fact that the volume is continually increasing, and are the Government going to take any steps to alter the existing rate of duties in view of the large volume of unemployed?

Dr. Burgin: The present position is not unsatisfactory.

IMPORTED BACON (QUOTA).

Mr. Leckie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement as to the request from the national deputation of bacon distributors which waited upon him on 17th November that the import bacon quota shall be increased by 10 per cent.?

Dr. Burgin: The request of the deputation to which my hon. Friend refers was for an increase in total supplies. Since then the cancellation of the 1937 contracts has materially altered the conditions under which imports have hitherto been regulated. The whole position is being reviewed by the Board of Trade and the Agricultural Departments, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the visible adverse balance of trade for 1936 and the increase over 1935; and when the annual estimate of the Board of Trade of the balance of payments will be published?

Dr. Burgin: The excess of imports over exports of merchandise in 1936 was £348,000,000, or £73,000,000 more than in 1935. An estimate of the balance of payments will be published in the Board of Trade Journal, as usual, about the end of next month.

Sir H. Croft: Can my hon. Friend say whether the invisible exports are likely to equal this increased figure?

Dr. Burgin: I think that is quite another question. This question is a statistical one, to which I have given a reply. Perhaps the best method would be to await the publication by the Board of Trade of the assembled figures.

FILMS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, and whether he will give particulars?

Dr. Burgin: I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave on 8th December to the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine).

Mr. Day: Will any legislation be introduced to amend this Act?

Dr. Burgin: We are awaiting the observations of the trade organisations on the matter.

IMPERIAL SHIPPING (PACIFIC).

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a further statement as to the discussions between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Governments in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as to the assistance of British shipping services in the Pacific?

Dr. Burgin: The report of the Imperial Shipping Committee has been under consideration and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have formulated certain proposals as a basis for discussion with the Dominion Governments concerned. The proposals will be communicated to these Governments in the course of the next few days.

Mr. Lewis: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the President of the Board of Trade is raising with the President of the United States of America the question of the competition of United States shipping in this matter?

Dr. Burgin: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FARM WORKERS (LEGISLATION).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy in relation to the findings of the Committee on farm workers in Scotland?

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to say when he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on farm workers in Scotland that the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, should be applied to Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): It is my intention to introduce at an early date legislation providing for the regulation of the wages and conditions of service of farm workers in Scotland. The Measure will be in general conformity with the system already in operation in England and Wales.

Mr. Mathers: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make this new arrangement operative?

Mr. Elliot: That must depend upon when the Bill reaches the Statute Book.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that this Measure will be introduced during the current Session?

Mr. Elliot: I hope it will. Of course, I am not in a position to give pledges, but I have every intention of bringing it in as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SITUATION.

Mr. D. Grenfell: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make regarding the position of affairs in India?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): The internal situation in India continues to be generally satisfactory. Interest in the country is now centred chiefly on the elections. In Bombay the situation continues to improve. The construction of roads in the Khaisora Valley in Waziristan continues and troops remain in occupation of the area. On 15th January a jirgah of the Tori Khel tribe were interviewed and their attitude was satisfactory. The opposition to the troops is confined to a small number of hostile tribesmen.

Mr. Grenfell: Has the hon. Gentleman any report to give to the House regarding the elections?

Mr. Butler: The elections have only started, and are due to end about the middle of next month. At present, I have nothing to add to the answer already given.

MAGISTRATE'S ORDER (CAWNPORE).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a motion to discuss the action of a magistrate in Cawnpore in passing orders banning meetings of workers at the time of an industrial dispute was disallowed by the Governor-General; and what opportunity is available for the examination by the legislature of such executive action against which there is no judicial remedy?

Mr. Butler: The motion in question was not disallowed by the Governor-General but was ruled out of order by the President of the Indian Assembly. It is not the case that there is no judicial remedy in such cases, since it is open to an aggrieved person to move a superior court against the magistrate's order under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. Williams: Have the impoverished workers in that area either the finance or the power or the influence to initiate the proceedings referred to in the answer?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, but I have informed the hon. Gentleman of the procedure.

Mr. Williams: Are we to understand from the answer that in the midst of a strike, the strikers are not to be permitted to meet; and in such circumstances how does he expect industrial disputes to be settled?

Mr. Butler: Each case must be taken on its own merits.

STRIKE (AHMEDABAD).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the large-scale strike of operatives at the Ahmedabad cotton mills against wage cuts and the dismissal of employees, which has led to the Government prohibiting by executive orders meetings of strikers or the assembly of more than five persons in the city and to the police dispersing strikers by lathi charges?

Mr. Butler: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the strike which began in the Rajnagar group of textile mills on 26th October as a protest against the employment of new hands on reduced wages in one mill. On 27th October all the strikers, except 471 hands, resumed work, and by the second week of January a settlement had been reached for the reinstatement of all the old workers. The question of wages has been referred, along with other wage questions outstanding in the Ahmedabad textile industry, to an arbitration board. According to my information the strike was peaceful throughout and no prohibitory orders were issued by the local Government.

Mr. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the wages paid and as to the wages contemplated on the reduced scale?

Mr. Butler: I should have notice of that question.

NATIONAL DEFENCE (FOOD SUPPLY).

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has any statement to make regarding the Food Defence Department?

Dr. Burgin: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement respecting the scope and organisation of the Food (Defence Plans) Department which was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on 2nd December in reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys).

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put down this question because there was "nowt" in the answer to which he refers?

FACTORY ACCIDENTS (JUVENILES).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any report from the joint committee of the factory department and the national federation of employers' organisations on factory accidents among juveniles?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): The Joint Committee have drawn up a list of recommendations which have been embodied in a Memorandum. The National Confederation have issued this to all employers' organisations, urging them to do everything in their power to enlist the active support and co-operation of all employers in their respective industries in securing a diminution of the accident rate among juveniles. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC DEVICES.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary the number of police taken off traffic duty in the Metropolitan area since the introduction of automatic signals?

Sir J. Simon: The total number of constables taken off traffic duty in the Metropolitan Police District since the inception of automatic traffic signals is 485.

Captain Harold Balfour: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of them are now engaged in watching to see that motorists obey the traffic signals?

Sir G. Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider appointing an independent committee to inquire into the working of the regulations governing pedestrian crossings and the use of electric traffic lights, with a view to making more efficient these devices for increasing safety on the roads?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hore-Belisha): These devices, and the regulations governing them, are always under observation by the responsible highway authorities, by chief constables and by officers of my Department. It is noteworthy that 1936 showed a reduction in pedestrian casualties for the second year in succession. This reduction followed upon the installation of pedestrian crossings, the fullest benefits of which are yet to be achieved by observance rather than by regulation.

STEAM ROAD VEHICLES.

Mr. L. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the slow

progress that is being made in this country towards placing on a commercial basis the processes of producing oil and petrol from British coal, he will consider the desirability of changing the regulations with regard to heavy steam vehicles on the roads with a view to encouraging an increase in the volume of such steam traffic and a consequent increase in the amount of coal required for road transport?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: While I doubt whether any concessions which I could make in regulations would achieve the end desired by my hon. Friend, I am ready, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Mines, to consider any constructive suggestions which may be made.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the last five years approximately 5,000 steam vehicles have been taken off the roads, involving a loss to the coal trade of about half a million, coal-produced fuel being replaced by oil, and will he take these factors into careful consideration?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, there is a tendency for fewer and fewer steam vehicles to be used, persons having a preference for petrol- or oil-driven vehicles. The Government have lent assistance by making certain concessions already, which I am afraid have not arrested this tendency.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND (PLANNING SCHEMES).

Major Stourton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what remedy the Government propose to apply to arrest the destruction of agricultural land for building purposes for lack of proper planning schemes by county authorities?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I understand that planning resolutions have now been approved to cover more than half the country, and that a number of the schemes which are being prepared contemplate substantial reservations of land for agricultural purposes. The extent to which such reservations will be practicable will depend primarily on the measure of agreement which can be


reached between the local authorities who are responsible for the planning scheme and the owners of land included in the scheme.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion, in the light of his own and the Government's experience, that no efficient and adequate planning can take place until agricultural land is nationalised?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Major Owen: Is there any collaboration between the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air in regard to land taken for military purposes; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large tracts of valuable agricultural land have been taken over to be used merely for military purposes?

Mr. Morrison: I would not like to apply the adverb "merely" to military purposes which are, in themselves, sufficiently important, but I can assure the House that on questions which do affect my Department there is always consultation with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that landowners who are able to obtain large prices and land speculators who are willing to pay large prices have no concern either with the food supply of the country or the position of agricultural labourers?

Mr. Michael Beaumont: Is not the only possible solution, to make agriculture pay?

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Major Stourton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what immediate steps, if any, the Government propose to take to counter the steady exodus of the skilled agricultural population to the cities and towns and the shrinkage of land under cultivation?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The whole agricultural policy of the Government, including the recent extension of unemployment insurance to agricultural workers, is designed to improve the position of the agricultural industry and so make conditions more attractive both for the employer and for the employed. The tendencies to which my hon. and gallant Friend draws attention are constantly engaging my attention, and if he has any

suggestions to make, I shall be happy to receive them and will give them most careful consideration.

Major Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a steady decline now for 10 consecutive years in the number of agricultural workers employed and that there has been an equally steady decline in the amount of land under cultivation for 15 years; and is it not about time something was done to reverse this position?

MALTING BARLEY (PRICES).

Mr. Liddell: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the possibility of making it compulsory upon maltsters and brewers to make a return of the price paid for home-grown malting barley and the quantity used?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I have been asked to reply. Returns of purchases of home-grown barley for malting and brewing are already furnished annually by the Brewers' Society to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and are published. The Committee have also power to require returns of prices, if they think fit. In view of the amount of attention which the Committee have given to this matter, I do not think that any action on my part is called for.

Major Braithwaite: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think it time his Department asked for these prices, which all the agricultural interests in the country have been asking for in the past three years?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Import Duties Advisory Committee have the power, if they so desire, to ask for these prices, but I do not propose to press them, in view of the interest which they are taking already in this matter.

CALVES AND COWS FOR SLAUGHTER.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the number of calves and cows, respectively, sold for slaughter in the last period for which the figures are available and for the two preceding years?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of calves sold for slaughter in Great Britain (including calves slaughtered on farms) in the year ended 31st May, 1936, was estimated at approximately 1,092,000, compared with 1,131,000 and 987,000 respectively in the two preceding years. No estimates are available of the numbers of cows sold for slaughter each year, but the total numbers of cattle over one year old estimated to have been sold for slaughter in the same three years were 2,134,000, 2,034,000 and 1,843,000; these figures include fat cattle that were imported into Great Britain as stores, but do not include animals imported in fat condition.

CATTLE SUBSIDY.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the number of cattle receiving subsidy during the years ending 31st December, 1934, 1935, and 1936?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The number of cattle in respect of which subsidy was paid during the year ending 31st December, 1934, was 446,054. This relates to a period of four months only, as subsidy payments were not made until 1st September of that year. The figures for the years ending 31st December, 1935 and 1936, were respectively 1,582,429 and 1,707,989.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much time was spent on the means test committee inquiring into this?

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. Quibell: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to introduce an amending Bill to the Land Drainage Act, 1930, during the present Session?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS.

Mr. Sexton: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give special consideration to the institution of a short specialised course of physical training for unemployed teachers to enable them to obtain employment as instructors in schools, thus assisting in

the Board's activities in improving the physical welfare of the pupils and at the same time giving hope to a body of young men and women who have already undergone a course of training in the training colleges?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Shakespeare): There are already a number of courses of varying duration in physical training for teachers who have left the normal training colleges and who may or may not have obtained posts, and it is proposed to increase the number of these courses. I do not think that the number of teachers who remain long out of employment after leaving the training colleges would be sufficient to justify special courses for them.

Mr. Sexton: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider circularising the local education authorities asking them to give favourable consideration to employing unemployed teachers wherever and whenever feasible on evening-class teaching?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is open to local authorities in making appointments to evening schools to give preference to teachers who have no other employment, provided always that they are suitably qualified for the purpose, but this is a matter I must leave to the authorities' discretion.

STATISTICS.

Mr. McEntee: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of boys and girls who, at the age of 14, left the elementary schools in March, 1935, and March, 1936?

Mr. Shakespeare: I regret that I have not the precise information for which the hon. Member asks. I am however circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the number of boys and girls who, on attaining the age of exemption from compulsory school attendance, left the public elementary schools in England and Wales for reasons other than further education during the years ending 31st March, 1935, and the 31st March, 1936.

Following is the statement:


Year ended
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


31st March, 1935
221,270
223,694
444,964


31st March, 1936
225,675
226,014
451,689

MILK, SCHOOL CHILDREN.

Mr. McEntee: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of elementary schools in England and Wales that do not provide for the supply of milk to school children, giving separate figures for each county concerned?

Mr. Shakespeare: As the answer contains a large number of figures, I am, with the hon. Member's permission, sending him the information.

Mr. McEntee: Are any steps being taken by the hon. Gentleman's Department to induce or compel local authorities that are not giving milk to do so?

Mr. Shakespeare: We have no powers of compulsion, but we use every power of persuasion.

BOYS' SCHOOL, BLAINA.

Mr. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the physical condition of the children in the boys' school at Blaina, Monmouthshire, where the headmaster has reported that 50 per cent. of his pupils are undersized and underfed, poorly clad and badly shod; and, seeing that only 18 per cent. receive free milk and that the grants to the Monmouthshire education authority are insufficient to provide adequate necessities, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Shakespeare: My attention has been called to the physical condition of the children in the boys' school at Blaina, which is not satisfactory, though on my present information I cannot fully accept the headmaster's statement. I should welcome increased provision of free milk in this and other schools in Monmouthshire, but I understand that this provision is restricted by the severe income scale at present in force. This question has recently been discussed with representatives of the local education authority, and I understand that the authority are considering the question of introducing a more generous income scale.

Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the headmaster's statement on the matter, is he not prepared to accept the statement made by two officers of the medical officer of health of the county who re-examined these children in January this year and discovered that

children of 15 years of age were on an average 16 lbs. under weight, that 40 of the boys were sitting in school with damp feet, and that poverty and despair were all over the district?

Mr. Shakespeare: My attention has been called to that report, which did not bear out the statement of the headmaster. As regards the boots, I understand that a fund has been raised to provide boots for the children.

Mr. Johnston: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the official inquiry shows that the condition of affairs is worse than the original statement made by the headmaster?

Mr. Shakespeare: It did not approximate to the statement of the headmaster at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the petition from the distressed areas of South Wales prepared by the local authorities and a large number of industrial firms and churches; and whether he will, as requested by them, establish a committee of the Cabinet for co-ordinating the functions of Government Departments in regard to matters which form the subject of recommendations of the Commissioners of Special Areas in his report?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): Questions on this subject were put to me on 3rd December last by the hon. Member, and on 30th November by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Since that time, and during the Recess, the position of the Special Areas has again been comprehensively studied in connection with the recent reports by the Commissioners. As has already been announced, it is intended to introduce a Bill amending the Special Areas Act; I hope to be able at an early date to announce when the Bill will be introduced.

Sir W. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the appointing of a Cabinet Committee, as asked in the question?

The Prime Minister: I think what we have been doing is of more practical use,


and perhaps that question might be raised in the general debate which will follow the introduction of legislation.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of grants paid to Weardale rural district council, Stanhope urban district council, Teesdale rural district council, and Barnard Castle urban council, respectively, by the Commissioner for Special Areas for the purpose of giving employment and assisting the local authorities concerned?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No grants out of the Special Areas Fund have been paid to the Weardale rural, Stanhope urban, and Teesdale rural district councils. The Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales) has not been satisfied that the financial position of the first two councils is such that assistance from the Fund toward the cost of schemes is necessary, while the Teesdale rural district is not a Special Area under the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934. The Barnard Castle urban district council is carrying out a small sewerage scheme, estimated to cost £4,300, in association with a larger scheme undertaken by a neighbouring Authority, towards which grant has been promised and, in the special circumstances, an offer of a grant of 25 per cent. of the approved cost has been made to the Barnard Castle council in respect of their portion of the scheme.

WEAVING INDUSTRY, CARMARTHENSHIRE.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the long depression in the weaving industry carried on in and round Drefach, Henllan, Carmarthenshire; and what plans are in hand to revive this industry or to assist the weavers to produce other commodities?

Dr. Burgin: I have been asked to reply. I am informed that several mills in or near Drefach were closed down some 12 or 15 years ago, but that, partly owing to Admiralty contracts placed last year, the remaining mills are now fully employed. The technical advisory service of the University of Wales, which receives grants from the Development Commissioners, and the design service of the

Rural Industries Bureau, are helping the Welsh textile industry to extend the range of its products. I understand that, as a result of this assistance, the position of the industry generally has been improving.

Mr. Hopkin: Will the Minister see that the mills in this district get a share of Army contracts?

Dr. Burgin: I think that that is another question, which might be borne in mind.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further statement to make as to the settlement of the British War debt to the United States of America?

Mr. Chamberlain: The position is as stated in the note which was addressed to the United States Government on 10th December last (Command Paper No. 5330), and I have no further statement to make.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend willing favourably to consider any practicable proposals which may be put forward by the United States Government on this subject?

Mr. Chamberlain: The United States Government are not considering putting forward any proposals, so far as I am aware.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any negotiations for the settlement with America of the French debt?

Mr. Chamberlain: No, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are prepared to have what is known as the clean slate for all these debts owing by all the countries?

THE CORONATION.

Major Stourton: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a statement as to the allocation of stands in the substantial portion of the route controlled by the Government to view the Coronation procession; whether he will give an assurance that adequate


accommodation will be reserved for the poorer section of the community; and will he consider reserving seats for representatives of ex-service men's organisations throughout the country?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the announcement which appeared in the Press on Saturday last. In it the general principles are set forth on which the accommodation is being allocated. To that announcement I am not at present in a position to add; but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the points to which he refers are all being borne in mind.

Major Stourton: Are ex-service men being given special consideration in the Government scheme?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in celebration of the Coronation, he will arrange for recipients of old age and widows' pensions to receive an extra 10s.?

Mr. Chamberlain: I regret that the Government cannot see their way to promote the legislation which would be necessary to authorise such grants.

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (BROADCAST ADDRESS).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Postmaster-General whether the text of the broadcast by the Archbishop of Canterbury on Sunday, 13th December, was submitted to the British Broadcasting Corporation authorities for approval before it was delivered?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): No, Sir. I understand that when a broadcast is to be given of a religious service conducted by the head of a church in this country, it is not the practice of the British Broadcasting Corporation to ask for the text of his address to be submitted to them beforehand.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this address of the Archbishop was given as a religious service broadcast, and will he represent to the British Broadcasting authorities that it is altogether

deplorable that an occasion of that kind should be used for an outburst of spleen—

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be giving his opinion on this subject.

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. I am merely asking the Postmaster-General, as representing the B.B.C. in this House, that he should represent to the B.B.C. authorities the undesirability of allowing episcopal spleen of this nature—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Maxton: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is using epithets which are never allowed in this House.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Does not the Postmaster-General think that this criticism of the late King might have been made while he was on the Throne?

Sir John Haslam: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the expression of views by the Archbishop enhanced his reputation in this country?

CENTRAL AIR-PORT (LONDON).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has yet been made with reference to a central air-port for London?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): My hon. and learned Friend will find that this question of a central air-port for London is dealt with in the report of Sir Henry Maybury's Committee, which is being laid before the House. No decisions have yet been taken in regard to the report.

Mr. Lyons: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when that report will be discussed in the House, because there is great public alarm at the delay in coming to a decision?

Sir P. Sassoon: It will be laid before the House to-morrow.

CHINA.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in the Far East?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding events in China?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Attacks on the province of Suiyuan by a mixed body of Mongolian and Manchukuo irregulars were repulsed in December by the troops of Fu Tso-yi, Governor of the Province, assisted by reinforcements of Nanking Government troops. Meanwhile negotiations in Nanking between the Chinese Government and the Japanese Ambassador were suspended and have not yet been resumed, but the Japanese Ambassador is reported to have received instructions to resume them on matters outstanding between the two countries. A settlement of two incidents in which Japanese nationals have been murdered in China had already been reached. In December a mutiny occurred at Sian among the troops of Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang, who demanded an alliance against Japan with the Communists, whom they had orders to suppress. The Generalissimo, Chiang Kai-shek, who had gone to Sian with the object of dealing with the trouble before it came to a head, was made captive by the mutineers, and was only released after many days of suspense. Marshal Chang thereafter accompanied him to Nanking to submit to trial on a charge of mutiny and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and loss of civil rights. The sentence of imprisonment was later remitted on the ground that he had acted in good faith. Central Government authority does not appear to have been fully re-established in the affected areas; the local leaders remain defiant and Central Government troops are reported to have been ordered against them.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House on the international situation?

Mr. Eden: I hope to have an opportunity of making a statement on certain aspects of the international situation later this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to wait till then.

SPAIN.

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Spain?

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement respecting Spain and the attempts at mediation?

Sir G. Mitcheson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the situation in Spain?

Mr. Eden: I hope to have an opportunity later to-day of making a full statement on the present situation arising out of the Spanish conflict. Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to wait till then.

Captain Arthur Evans: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to report to the House concerning the alleged incident in Spanish waters early this month when the Cardiff steamer, "Bramhill," was stopped off Cape Tarifa and fired upon by the armed Spanish Nationalist trawler "Larache" and whether His Majesty's Government have lodged a protest with the Spanish Nationalist authorities?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. It has been reported to His Majesty's Government that the "Bramhill" was fired upon by the insurgent armed trawler "Larache" on Tuesday, 12th January, outside territorial waters off Cape Tarifa. His Majesty's ship "Sussex," which arrived immediately on the scene in response to an appeal for assistance from the "Bramhill," and on whose approach the Spanish vessel departed, ascertained that the "Bramhill" carried no contraband cargo, and that her papers were in order. His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye has been instructed to enter a protest with the insurgent authorities against this case of interference with a British ship on the high seas.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we prefer his use of the term "insurgent" to the use of the term "nationalist"?

Mr. Maxton: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to proceed with the


ban on volunteers from this country to Spain, in view of the attitude of other countries involved; and if so whether he regards the Foreign Enlistment Act as giving him the necessary statutory powers?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The question is not so much one of imposing a ban but of enforcing the existing law of the land in cases where there is sufficient evidence of an offence having been committed, and the necessity for doing this is not dependent on the action of other countries.

Mr. Maxton: In reference to the latter part of my question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Foreign Enlistment Act does actually apply to a situation of this description that is presently existing in Spain, and has he seen a contradictory view expressed very strongly by eminent lawyers in the public Press and in other places?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Of course, that is not a matter for the Foreign Office, but we have been advised that the Act does apply, and that is the whole point.

Mr. Thorne: Why did the Government not put the ban into operation when General O'Duffy sent a number of men from Liverpool?

Mr. Eden: I have no responsibility for the action of a citizen of the Irish Free State.

Mr. Macquisten: If very young men from this country are so foolish as to interfere in this dispute, ought we not just to let them do so?

Mr. Maxton: How does it come about that the Law Officers and the police authorities of this country have ignored the existence of this particular statute until the Foreign Office instructed them to operate it?

Mr. Eden: I am going to deal with this subject later in the day, and with the leave of the hon. Member I would rather deal with it then, when I can do so more fully and in a more satisfactory form.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Foreign Secretary never became interested in volunteers until the volunteers stopped Franco from entering Madrid?

Mr. Cocks: Three cheers for the international brigade!

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Morgan Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House with regard to the present position of affairs in Abyssinia?

Mr. Eden: Since the close of the rains at the end of last September the Italian military forces have in various directions extended their authority into areas previously uncontrolled. In the Western provinces, Jiren, Nekempti, Sayo, Gore and the Ethiopian customs station at Gambeila have been occupied; while my latest information indicates that Italian forces have also penetrated into the northern section of Beni Shangul, adjoining the Sudan frontier. In the southern provinces progress has been made, though with considerable native opposition, by the Italian columns advancing northwards from Mega on the Kenya frontier and southwards from Addis Ababa. The greater part of the province of Balé, however, with an area immediately to the west of the lakes which lie south of Addis Ababa, and parts of the provinces of Arussi and Sidamo appear to remain unoccupied; and there are, I regret to say, still a number of foreign missionaries unable to move owing to the insecurity of communications and the inter-tribal disorders which have continued to occur during the last five or six months.

Mr. Jones: May we take it from the reply that the Government still adhere to their policy not to recognise the conquest of Abyssinia?

Mr. Eden: There is another question on that point.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the future status of His Majesty's representative at Addis Ababa, and whether it is now proposed to recognise the annexation of Abyssinia by Italy and the assumption by the King of Italy of the title of Emperor of Abyssinia?

Mr. Eden: In view of the fact that the Abyssinian territories where British subjects had interests were under the control of the Italian authorities, His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome, on instructions, informed the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs on 21st December of the decision of His Majesty's Government


to withdraw the British Legation at Addis Ababa and to substitute for it a Consulate-General. This action does not involve the recognition referred to in the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Mr. H. G. Williams: How long has a fact to be a fact before it is acknowledged?

Mr. MacLaren: Until it appears in the "Labour Gazette."

ANGLO-ITALIAN MEDITERRANEAN AGREEMENT.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding negotiations for an Anglo-Italian Mediterranean pact?

Mr. Eden: The text of the Agreement recently reached with Italy has been made available in the form of a White Paper (Command 5348). I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with the substance of the Agreement later this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to wait till then.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement made by the Duce that the event of a Soviet form of Government occurring in Spain, would alter the status quo in the Mediterranean, and bow would that affect this pact?

Mr. Eden: I can only repeat that I hope the hon. Gentleman will await my statement.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether, in the course of that statement, the right hon. Gentleman will deal specifically with the question of the Balearic Islands?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

OFFICES (INSPECTION).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet circularised local authorities calling attention to the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, respecting the conditions of offices and the need for periodical inspection; and, if so, what has been the nature of the response?

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken by local authorities under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1935, to ensure that the provisions of the Act in respect of offices are effectively enforced?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): A circular drawing the attention of local authorities to their powers and duties under the Act in respect of offices is in course of preparation and will be issued well in advance of 1st October next, the date on which the Act comes into force.

WATER SUPPLY (PONTYATES, CARMARTHENSHIRE).

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the state of the water for use at Pontyates, Carmarthenshire; whether he is aware that the water has been described by the medical officer as not fit for human consumption; and will he say what steps are being or have been taken to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir K. Wood: The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. Every effort is, I am satisfied, being made to deal with the trouble which has arisen. I am keeping in close touch with the position, and will inform the hon. Member of its development.

WATER STORAGE, WALES.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Minister of Health whether any water-storage scheme involving considerable employment in construction is under consideration for Central and South Wales for towns supply or hydro-electric power for refinery plants for calcium carbide or the like?

Sir K. Wood: I have no knowledge of any such scheme being under consideration.

PALESTINE.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Palestine?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There has been some increase since last November


in acts of highway robbery which appear to have been prompted by economic or criminal, rather than by political, motives. Special police measures have been taken and a number of arrests have been made. Apart from these cases and a few other isolated acts of violence the situation in Palestine has remained outwardly quiet, although a general state of tension still persists.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Does Signor Mussolini's Government continue to disseminate anti-British propaganda on the wireless there?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have heard nothing of any further wireless propaganda there.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.

Sir P. Harris: (forMr. Graham White) asked the Home Secretary what reply he has given to the request that he should receive a deputation from the London County Council in support of its request that he should institute a public inquiry into the general conduct of employment agencies?

Sir J. Simon: I have arranged to receive this deputation on Tuesday next.

FISHING INDUSTRY DISPUTE, NORTH SHIELDS.

Mr. West Russell: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the dispute in the fishing industry at North Shields, and whether in view of the deadlock he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am aware of the circumstances of this dispute. I am informed that the men who have gone on strike have done so against the advice of the trade union concerned and in contravention of an agreement between the union and the owners' association. As soon as the men resume work it will be open for the owners' association and the union to consider jointly along constitutional lines the claims the men have made, but as long as the present stoppage continues there is no action that the Ministry can usefully take.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISMISSALS).

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give the reasons for the recent summary dismissals of dockyard workmen, under what Regulations they were so dismissed, and if, with a view to preventing unrest and dissatisfaction among dockyard workers, the Regulations will be amended so as to ensure that, in similar cases, a man will be informed of the grounds of his dismissal and be given an opportunity to reply to any charges against his character or conduct?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare): As the question of the right hon. Member deals with an exceptional and important case, the House will, I hope, permit me to deal with it in a somewhat lengthy answer. The men connected with this question have not been discharged because of their political views. Any employé in the dockyards can hold what political views he wishes. His opinions are his personal affair. As long as his work is satisfactory and his politics neither interfere with it nor lead to courses that will endanger the Navy and the State, there never has been, nor should there be, any interference with him. Secondly, the discharges do not imply that the spirit of the great majority of the dockyard workers is not excellent.
There do, however, arise cases, very rarely, I am happy to say, in which individuals throw discredit upon their fellow-workers by grave departure from the uniform high standard of loyal conduct which the dockyard personnel themselves have set up. The House will appreciate that cases of this nature in a Royal Dockyard involve risks, dangers and anxieties of a very serious kind. In the course of the autumn, information came to my knowledge of subversive activities on the part of certain men. They were activities calculated to endanger the safety and welfare of the State. I went personally into the matter. The information at my disposal seemed to me to confirm completely the serious view that was taken of the conduct of these men. In a matter, however, that involved the careers of five men, one of whom was an established workman of many years service, I was anxious not to rely upon my sole judgment. I, therefore, had the cases exhaustively


investigated by a body composed of highly-placed, responsible and experienced permanent officials, and, I may add, officials not restricted to the Admiralty. All of them were civilians; all of them, as I know, were most anxious to do the fullest and most impartial justice to the men concerned. All of them took careful account of the nature of the procedure that was inevitable in cases of this kind. When it is impossible in the interests of national security to disclose the sources of information and to adopt the procedure of a court of law or of a normal Government inquiry, it is particularly necessary to give the fullest possible weight to the points in favour of the individuals whose conduct is being considered. I have been personally assured by each of the investigators that if they had a bias, it was a bias in favour of exoneration. Their investigation, however, forced them to the unanimous view that in the interests of the safety of the Navy these five men should not remain in employment in His Majesty's Dockyards.
I have a heavy responsibility upon my shoulders. I am responsible to this House for the safety of the men and the ships in His Majesty's Navy. If I am convinced after the fullest investigation, not only by myself but by senior and responsible civilian advisers, that the retention of certain individuals may endanger the safety of the men and ships of the Royal Navy, my course is clear. The Admiralty can no longer continue to keep these men in their employment, and in accordance with the undoubted right, which the Board of Admiralty shares with other employers of labour, of discharging any employés whose services it is not desired to retain, these men have been discharged. No loyal man in the Dockyards need on this account feel the least anxiety. The cases of disloyalty are altogether exceptional. In the interests, however, not only of the Navy but also of the overwhelming majority of the men in the Dockyards, I am convinced that these five men must leave the employment of the State.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether these men were informed of what the charge against them was, whether they were given any opportunity whatever of making their defence and whether there was any reason why men accused of a crime of

this nature should not be allowed legal advice?

Mr. Thorne: Were the men in question brought before the investigators so that they could answer the charges made against them?

Sir S. Hoare: The answer to all those questions is in the negative. It is impossible to state the reasons publicly, for the same reason, that, in the interests of of the security of the State, it is impossible to have a public inquiry.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that statement and in view of the fact that we are responsible for the liberty of the subject—[Interruption] I always understood that this House was responsible—I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of raising this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Mr. Attlee asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the Business of the House.

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition has already intimated to me, through the usual channels, that it would be desirable if an opportunity were found to-day for a discussion on the situation in Spain. In view of the fact that we have just met after a recess, and especially as the Foreign Secretary is going to Geneva to-morrow, I think it would meet the wishes of the House if a Debate took place as suggested. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to conclude the Debate on the Empire Settlement Money Resolution by about Seven o'clock this evening, when the Government would propose to move the Adjournment of the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement. I would remind hon. Members who are interested in Empire migration that a Bill will, of course, follow the Money Resolution, and full opportunity will be given for further debate on the subject when the Second Reading of that Bill is taken.
To-morrow (Wednesday), as has already been announced, we shall take the Second Reading of the Livestock Industry Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Financial Resolution, and on Thursday the Second Reading of the Beef and Veal Customs Duties Bill. I understand, however, from representations which have been


made, that it would meet the convenience of the House generally if more time were allowed for the Debate on the Second Reading of the Livestock Industry Bill. We, therefore, propose to move the Second Reading of that Bill To-morrow, and continue the Debate on Thursday until about dinner time. Afterwards, we shall take the Second Reading of the Beef and Veal Customs Duties Bill.

Sir H. Croft: Will a full day be given to the Second Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

AIR DEFENCES.

Mr. Simmonds: I beg to give notice that on 27th January, I shall call attention to the continuing inadequacy of our air defences, and move a Resolution.

GROWING POWER OF EXECUTIVE.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to give notice that on 27th January, I shall call attention to the growing power of the Executive, and move a Resolution.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.

Mr. Frankel: I beg to give notice that on 27th January I shall call attention to the new Waterloo Bridge, and move a Resolution.

MERCHANT SERVICE.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to give notice that on 27th January I shall call attention to certain conditions existing in branches of the Merchant Service, and move a Resolution.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, as follows: —

(a) by prolonging by fifteen years the period beyond which the liability of the Secretary of State to make contributions under schemes agreed under the said Act is not to extend, so, however, that in any financial year after the current financial year the aggregate amount expended by the Secretary of State under any such scheme or schemes shall not exceed one million five hundred thousand pounds, exclusive of the interest of any sums received by way of interest on or repayment of advances previously made;
(b) by providing that the limit on the contributions of the Secretary of State towards the expenses of any such scheme shall be increased from one-half to three-quarters of those expenses, except in the ease of—

(i) a development or land settlement scheme; or
(ii) a scheme towards the expenses of which the government of a part of His Majesty's oversea dominions have agreed to contribute."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Mr. M. MacDonald.]

4.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The question of Empire migration is one which interests greatly many Members of the Committee. I understand, however, that the time during which we shall have to debate the question this afternoon is somewhat limited as another Debate on a certain and perhaps undesirable form of migration which is going on in another part of the world is to take place a little later on. But if the Committee would accept this Resolution, if they would give it to the Government as the first of its New Year's gifts so that I may get leave to introduce the Bill which is to be founded upon it, they will have another opportunity to roam over the whole field of this important question on the Second Reading of that Bill.
What is the purpose of this Financial Resolution? At the present moment there is on the Statute Book an Empire Settlement Act which was introduced 15 years ago by my right hon. Friend and predecessor, the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). That Act expires on the

last day of May of this year. Despite the celebrated economic blizzard which overwhelmed us a few years ago, and, among other things, crushed almost every bit of activity which was going on under that Act, certain migration schemes survived. Those schemes have been in operation ever since; they are still being operated and are developing to-day. Right through the period the Government have supported those schemes financially, and they are supporting them to-day. They are such schemes as the 1820 Settler's scheme, under which young men go to take up farming in South Africa; such schemes as the Barnardo Home arrangement, by which children go out to Australia and become good Australians; schemes also like the Fairbridge Farm School scheme, by which boys and girls go to Australia, and now to Canada, with every prospect of satisfactory settlement and good careers in those countries.

Mr. Maxton: Were the schemes referred to initiated by the Empire Settlement Act —the Barnardo scheme and the 1820 scheme?

Mr. MacDonald: The only point I am making is that those schemes have been and are still to-day assisted under the Empire Settlement Act by the Government, and unless we can amend the Act to continue its operation beyond the last day of May of this year, it will be impossible for the Government to continue that financial assistance. The Government wish to continue that assistance, and therefore the first Amendment which we have in mind to make in the Act would be to continue its operation beyond the end of May, 1937, for another 15 years. That is the first reason why we have moved this Financial Resolution. But there are other reasons still. When we considered it desirable to suggest an Amendment of that nature in the Act we naturally examined the provisions of the Act to see whether there were any other Amendments which present conditions would make desirable. I would like to make this point at this moment: The fact that we are proposing amending legislation is not a signal that the United Kingdom Government proposes of its own initiative and by its own action to start immediately again pumping more migrants into the Dominions. This is a question on which other Governments besides the Government of this country have


a say; it is a question on which the Dominion Governments must have a say also.
A policy of Empire migration must be a policy in which Dominion Governments and this Government co-operate fully as partners. Therefore, as I say, the fact that we propose amending legislation now does not mean that we are contemplating unilateral action by ourselves. We know that there are economic difficulties and possibly other difficulties in the Dominions. We understand those difficulties. It is true that there are other circumstances and that in many parts of the Dominions the problem of unemployment has not yet been reduced to what might be called normal again after the depression. We must wait on conditions in the Dominions; we must wait on opinion in the Dominions. We may have our preparations ready here, but it is for the Dominions to say the word "Go!" I hope the day is perhaps not far distant when we can make some beginning again in co-operation with Dominion authorities to expand above the present volume of the movement of migration. I have always maintained, and it is the policy of the Government, that we should not wait until that day arrives before we begin to think about this problem, that we should not wait until that day arrives before we begin to prepare our plans. We should use this period of lull to do some further thinking, to do what planning may be necessary, so that we are ready, when the opportunity comes, to seize it and take advantage of it at once.
Therefore, the policy of the Government has been to make the plans, to get the plans ready. The examination of the problem by the Inter-Departmental Committee and the report which it made two years ago are part of that process of preparation. The appointment of the Overseas Settlement Board a year ago was another step in that process, and the amending legislation which we have in mind is a further step in the process of getting ready for a resumption of migration on a larger scale when conditions in the Dominions will permit it. Then we came towards the period when the Empire Settlement Act was to expire. We therefore considered what other Amendments might be necessary besides a mere Amendment extending the life of

the Act. I asked the Overseas Settlement Board to examine the question. They have examined it. They have made certain recommendations to me and the proposals which we have in mind are based on the recommendations of the Board.
Let me say a few words about the other two Amendments which we have in mind. They are both referred to in the terms of the Resolution. The first of them is this: At present under the Act the maximum aggregate sum which the United Kingdom Government can expend in any one year on migration schemes is £3,000,000. We have it in mind to reduce that maximum to £1,500,000 in any one year, and the reason for that is explained in the Memorandum which was issued in connection with the Resolution. The reduction of the figure by one-half does not mean that the Government are now only half as enthusiastic as they were about migration. It does not mean that the Government, who previously were whole-hearted, are now half-hearted. I am still one who believes that a movement of migration to a judicious extent is going to be a very great need of the Empire before much more time has passed. The explanation of these reductions is something different.

Mr. Maxton: What is "judicious?"

Mr. MacDonald: I am not sure whether I would be in order if I started to explain that. I must stick closely to the Amendments which we contemplate in the Empire Settlement Act. The reason for the reduction in the maximum figure which the Government can expend in any one year is this: When the figure of £3,000,000 was put into the Act 15 years ago, no one knew quite how it was going to work out; but since then we have had a great deal of experience. The Overseas Settlement Board has been examining that experience and the Government have been examining it; we have been looking at the facts. For instance, the years 1926, 1927 and 1928 were the peak years of migration, the years which migration enthusiasts hold up to us as models now. In 1926, 132,000 people left this country to settle in the Dominions, of whom 66,000 were assisted emigrants; in 1927, 123,000


people left this country to settle in the Dominions, of whom 61,000 were assisted emigrants; and in 1928 the figures were respectively 109,000 and 48,000. Those were the peak figures of migration during the period when there was a considerable movement of migration in the 10 years after the war. What was the actual expenditure of the Government during those years, which were the best years that we had? In 1926 it amounted to £1,129,000, in 1927 to £1.282,000, and in 1928 to £1,139,000. Therefore, the figure which we would propose to put into the amending Act conforms much more closely with realities, with experience, with prospects, and yet at the same time, according to that experience, allows a reasonable margin over and above the actual figures which we have experienced in the past. That is the reason why we would contemplate the second of the amendments which are referred to in the Resolution.
I am well aware that there are some Members of the Committee, who have given a great deal of study to this question for a great many years and to whose views we all listen with care and with respect, who would urge that, even when the conditions are favourable, we shall not be able to stimulate migration adequately unless we are ready to spend large sums of money on great schemes of development and land settlement; and those hon. Members will perhaps frown at this reduced provision and say that it cannot possibly allow of great expenditure on schemes of that nature. I confess that I still do not share their faith in those large schemes of land settlement. Land settlement schemes generally only made a tiny contribution—something like 3 per cent. I think it was—to the great movement of migration which took place in the 10 years after the War, and I believe that that will be our experience also in the years which are ahead. Nevertheless, I would like to assure those hon. Members that the Government have not a completely closed mind on this question. The Overseas Settlement Board are free to examine all schemes for development or for land settlement, they are free to recommend any of those schemes to the Government, and the Government will consider those schemes strictly on their merits; and if the Government, having examined a scheme

recommended to them, find that that scheme is in their view desirable and wish to participate in the scheme, and if they find that the new provision which we propose under the amending Act is inadequate to allow them to do so, then I can give an undertaking that the Government would introduce amending legislation at the earliest convenient moment in order that they might have the funds to finance their share of the scheme. But for the reason which I have given, the reason of practical experience, we propose, so far as these Amendments of the Act are concerned, to reduce the maximum figure from £3,000,000 a year to £1,500,000 a year.
With regard to the other Amendment which we have it in mind to introduce, in the present Act the maximum percentage grant which the Government can give to any migration scheme is a 50 per cent. grant, and we propose to introduce an Amendment enabling the Government in certain cases to increase that grant from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. For instance, in many schemes the Government's partner is a voluntary society, and voluntary societies are essential in any humane policy of assisted migration. The help and advice which these societies have given to intending migrants, the help which they have given sometimes on the passage, the reception which they have given to newcomers in the countries overseas, and, above all perhaps, their aftercare work, have been a great boon to tens of thousands of British men and women who have left the Old Country in order to establish new homes in the young countries of the Empire. The experience of migration is that often it is still a rather uncertain adventure; there are, unfortunately, casualties to be recorded; but the voluntary societies have saved the new generation of pioneers many of the harshest experiences which afflicted the old generation. Those societies have performed a very great service to countless individuals and to the Empire as a whole. But it was inevitable in the recent past that the sources from which those voluntary societies used to draw their funds for migration work have tended somewhat to dry up, and the power of these societies to give their invaluable help to migrants has, therefore, tended to be limited; and yet these societies are essential agents in any proper policy of migration. Therefore, we propose so to


alter the Act that the Government in future, in the case of an efficient society, can give up to a 75 per cent. grant for its migration work.
Then there is the other case of the schemes in which the Government's partner, or one of the Government's partners, is the Government of one of the Dominions. In those cases we would not propose to alter the terms of the Act at all; we would propose still to limit the grant which this Government can give towards such schemes to a 50 per cent. grant. Sometimes it is suggested that in those cases also the United Kingdom Government ought to be able to give a bigger grant. It is sometimes urged upon me that I should be bold and persuasive, and should persuade the powers that be in the Treasury to allow the United Kingdom Government to give a 100 per cent. grant in those cases; and there are some schemes which are being canvassed which are based on the assumption that the United Kingdom Government will give a 100 per cent. grant. I believe that the adoption of that principle would be very bad from the point of view of migration itself. I believe that the practical result of this Government adopting that policy would be something like this, that criticism, suspicion and hostility against migration would be encouraged in the Dominions, that people in the Dominions would say, "Our Dominion Government are not spending a penny on bringing these settlers out to this country; obviously they do not think that this country is getting any benefit from this migration. It is the United Kingdom Government which is footing the whole bill, paying every penny of the expense, giving 100 per cent. grants. Clearly it is the United Kingdom which is getting all the benefit of this movement. The United Kingdom Government is getting rid of its surplus population; it is dumping its unemployed and its unemployables on us in the Dominions; it is getting rid of the people whom it wants to get rid of at any cost." That kind of impression, that migration is simply a device to help the United Kingdom out of some of its difficulties, has done great harm to the migration movement in the Dominions in the past; it is unfair to the new

settlers; it is unfair to migration generally; and yet I believe that this damaging impression would grow very swiftly if we were to accept the principle and the practice of this Government paying the whole of the expenditure while the partner Government in the Dominion concerned pays no expenses at all.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? In case he is referring to the scheme in which some of us are interested, may I say that a very great contribution is made from the Dominions by way of grants of free land, assistance in the matter of local taxation, and so on?

Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, I was not at the moment thinking of the particular scheme to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but there are other schemes which try to assume that this principle is practical politics, and, of course, I should be quite willing that the sort of matters which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned should be taken into account. Of course, however, on the other side, there are various expenses to which this country has been put, in educating and training migrants, which should also come into the scale if these matters are to be considered. I only want to make the point that a sound migration policy, when conditions are favourable, is a thing which benefits both the receiving country to which the migrant goes and the mother country which he leaves. The Dominions gain new citizens, who, be it remembered, are specially selected, and who are capable of giving a hand in the building up of the new country. The mother country, on the other hand, in the long run gains by the development of these young countries, which are steadily adding to the strength and authority of the Empire of which this country is the centre. Both benefit, and a proper migration policy should be one in which both Governments co-operate as full partners. That seems to me to be the cardinal principle of a sound policy, and I think it would be disastrous if we gave away the principle that the contribution of this Government in those cases should not be more than 50 per cent.
Those are the principles upon which we should seek to amend the Act. We


propose to introduce this legislation at this moment partly because, if we do not do something, the existing Act will come to an end completely next May, and partly because we want to have our plans ready for the day when migration can start again. By introducing, and I hope passing, legislation, we are not seeking by an act of our own to release a great flood of migration again. Our action would have to be supplemented by Dominion action. It is for the Dominions themselves to decide when the time and the conditions are ripe for that supplementary action by them. I hope and believe that the time is not far distant when we can make a beginning. On the question of migration generally there is a great deal that can be said both from the point of view of the population needs of the Dominions and also of this country, but I think that discussion on the general question and the prospects would far more appropriately take place on the Second Reading of the Bill which I hope to get leave to introduce, and I have confined myself strictly to the actual Amendments that we have in mind and an explanation of the reasons for those Amendments. I believe that the beginning of a greater migration movement is going to be a need of the Empire as a whole in the not very distant future and, as a step towards achieving that desirable object, I hope the Committee will accept this Money Resolution.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Lunn: This Resolution is to be the financial basis of a new Empire Settlement Bill. I think I have rarely heard a Minister put forward a case in which he showed so little faith. I agree with a good deal of what he has said. He has said, in a great many more words, what the late Secretary of State used to say in very few, that until we could see the prospects of a livelihood for those who go to the Dominions, he was not prepared to encourage migration. The right hon. Gentleman has said he is a believer in judicious migration. Perhaps he will explain on the Second Reading what he means by a judicious system of migration. He has told us that there is no prospect whatever of any immediate migration to the Dominions, and I agree entirely with him. In fact, I think it is largely a waste of our time to be discussing the subject at this moment. The

Empire Settlement Act terminates on 31st May next, and my own view is that it would have been far better if we could have got through the Imperial Conference and then discussed the possibilities of migration when he knew how far the Governments of the Dominions were going to co-operate. The right hon. Gentleman has said very definitely that there must be co-operation, and we ought to know what is in the mind of the Governments of the Dominions and of the Mother country before we settle it completely.
Further, the right hon. Gentleman shows that he has lost faith in the possibilities of migration when he says in the Resolution that, instead of some £3,000,000, we shall only have up to £1,500,000 during the next 15 years. I remember the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and I remember the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who at that time believed that £3,000,000 would be totally inadequate for what we should need for assisted migration in the 15 years to follow. We have seen that since that time there has never been a year in which we have spent more than £1,500,000. But, if there are going to be developments and schemes in the future, why not retain the £3,000,000 for the purpose of taking advantage of schemes during that period if they arise? I think the right hon. Gentleman will find a great deal of criticism in the House upon that point of halving the figure. In the Act of 1922 it is laid down that on all schemes, whether with a Government or with a private company or a voluntary society, should be on a fifty-fifty basis. That means that we should provide half the cost of all assisted schemes and that the other side, by the provision either of money or farms or land or other services, should provide the other half. That has operated for the last 15 years. The right hon. Gentleman now proposes to depart from that, and he suggests that we should increase the amount in certain cases to 75 per cent. In fact he has not shown much opposition even to going to 100 per cent. in certain cases. I wish the United Kingdom were in the Empire for the purposes of the Bill, because we have plenty of land and large numbers of unemployed, and we could settle our own people in our own country. I think that would be much better than taking this line.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given us sufficient explanation of this increase to 75 per cent. I shall want to know a great deal more about what is intended to be done with it. I am satisfied that the best schemes of assisted migration have been those between this Government and the Governments overseas. I am satisfied that you must have Government regulation and co-operation if you are to have successful migration. Whenever it starts again it must be understood that there will have to be co-operation between the Governments. The right hon. Gentleman stops at 1928. He did not give us the position since that time. I agree that it has been a very sad one with regard to migration, and with regard to the economic conditions not only in this country but in the Dominions. Since 1930 scores of thousands more have come back than have left the country. That means that there are scores of thousands there who would be anxious to come back.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the hon. Gentleman say that scores of thousands more came back than went out?

Mr. Lunn: Since 1930 scores of thousands more have come back to the United Kingdom than have left our shores for the Dominions. That is what I said and that is what I mean, and there is no prospect at all of any migration to any of the Dominions at present. There is a large amount of unemployment in each of the Dominions to-day. There is no statesman in any of the Dominions who supports the idea of migration at this moment. There is no Labour organisation and no trade union which will welcome migrants in the Dominions. The Prime Minister of New Zealand the other day said:
If people come here from Great Britain, jobs for them must come with them.
That is the attitude of all the Dominions. I wish conditions were better than they are and I wish there were the opportunities. I have always been satisfied, since I took up this question, that there are many people who, if there were an opportunity of a livelihood and decent conditions, would be willing to go overseas, but I know that conditions are such that there is no possibility of anyone going and finding the prospects as bright

as they are at home. We must be careful not to let it be understood that we desire to shovel our people overseas, and I think there must be a real guarantee of a proper livelihood for those who go. Then I have no objection, if there is full and complete publicity as to conditions overseas, to people, who desire to go on their own, taking the step. We have not had much information from the right hon. Gentleman. The White Paper is very vague indeed upon these proposals. I know that the Overseas Settlement Board has a difficult job with economic conditions as they are here and overseas, but they say in their interim report that the United Kingdom Government should not in any circumstances contribute more than an equitable share. Why do they recommend that we should spend 75 per cent. and ask only 25 per cent., I take it, from voluntary organisations or private companies in the Dominions? I cannot understand why they should make this recommendation, which is accepted by the Secretary of State. I may be wrong but the purpose of this increase as I see it is very objectionable. With Government co-operation it is to be only fifty-fifty, but with voluntary organisation, I suppose that it is to be up to 75 per cent.
Migration, in my view, can be successful only if it is subject to arrangement between the Government of our own country and Governments overseas. We are dealing with human beings and with human feelings in this question of migration, and we should take every factor into consideration when dealing with migrants, and not simply be concerned with getting them out of this country. There should be publicity given to the conditions so that we may know where we are sending our people and the conditions under which they are to live. We are not living in pre-War days, and cannot take the steps that were taken in those days. We all know the hardships and suffering that many migrants underwent in those days, and I hope that such conditions will never be repeated.
I hope that when we get the Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman will have to introduce if this Resolution is passed, he will tell us more of the intentions of the Government with regard to migration. I have no desire on this occasion to go into the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which sat two years ago, except to say that I want the doubts as


to the intention of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the 75 per cent. cleared up. That Inter-Departmental Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, recommended the restarting of child migration to Canada. I hope that it may never be restarted. We had child migration to Canada for many years up to 1924, when a delegation went out to Canada, and, as a result of their report, the migration of children under school-leaving age was closed entirely, both the Government of the United Kingdom and the Canadian Government agreeing that it should cease. I do not say that every child that went to Canada was made the subject of cheap labour, but there was a good number of cases personally investigated by the delegation, cases in which the children were found to be little drudges. I have spent a good many years in fighting mui-tsai in Hong Kong, and I do not want to see anything resembling it established in any British Dominion.
I hope that we shall be told very plainly by the right hon. Gentleman whether or not it is intended to restart child migration to Canada, or to seek from the Canadian Government their approval for the restarting of the system. I hope that our Government will never approve of it, and that the Canadian Government will not take steps with the object of restarting it. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he will meet with the bitterest opposition if that is to be one of the things recommended. I would prefer that our people should be settled at home, but if they wish to go to the Dominions, it must be with the co-operation of the Governments overseas. People should not be left in the hands of voluntary societies, however estimable they may be. We must have regard to the fate of these people when they go overseas. If we allow this Resolution to go through, we do not promise that the Bill will be allowed to do so without opposition, unless we have a very clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman upon the main points which I have mentioned. When he introduces his Bill, he must tell us the Government's policy on migration. It is not for the Board to tell us what the Government's policy shall be, but for the Government themselves and the Minister. If the Minister does not do so clearly and distinctly, I promise him that he will have

opposition to the Bill when he brings it forward for a Second Reading.

4.51 p.m.

Sir H. Croft: I am aware that many Members desire to speak, and that the proceedings are to end early, so that there may be an important Debate later in the evening. Therefore, I propose to detain the Committee for only a few minutes. I must enter a caveat with regard to one or two remarks which fell from the lips of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), because I think that he is probably under a misapprehension when he suggests that the Prime Ministers of all the Dominions have indicated that they are opposed to the reopening of migration. I have watched this subject very closely, and I believe that I am right in saying that, possibly with the exception of South Africa, where there have been neither negative nor positive statements with regard to British migrants, every Prime Minister has shown a readiness to consider the reopening of the question in the near future. That is my impression. I think it is also true of practically every provincial Prime Minister in Canada. Some of them have most urgently advocated that the best way of restarting recovery in Canada would be to see a reflow of migration, which in itself would start new jobs going.
There was one other remark which the hon. Member made, with regard to the 75 per cent. contribution, to which I understand the Secretary of State, if necessary, is prepared to go. For my part, and in the opinion of those friends who have worked with me on this subject for some years, we most cordially welcome this enlightened display. Where the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Socialist party was under a slight misapprehension was that he was thinking solely of schemes of migration. As far as I understand it, it is the desire of the Government to show readiness for ordinary infiltration in respect of 75 per cent., and that thereafter it is a question for consideration in regard to these schemes. I think it is in the transit of the migrants, where the principle is advocated, that we should not stick literally to 50–50, but should go up to 75 per cent. I am absolutely convinced that it is to our advantage, in these next 10 years particularly, to give opportunities to men who desire to migrate, to get


to the Dominions under the easiest possible terms. If it is what it is called infiltration when they have relations out there ready to give them a job, the Dominions may not see the perfect advantage, as the hon. Gentleman does, but, at the same time, there can be no doubt whatever that it is going to be an advantage which this country will find remunerative, certainly within three years of the time the migrants leave. Therefore, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is no difficulty in getting support from the vast majority of the Committee for the 75 per cent. basis. We made a mistake in days gone by in trying to make a rigid bargain of 50–50. Generally speaking, most of those who have their heart in this great question of migration, which is greater than party politics altogether, desire to give to men the dignity of labour, of which they have been deprived for many years, and will give support to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
I am distressed that the proposal has been made—and I understand that it emanates from the Dominions Office itself—that the figure should be limited to £1,500,000. After all, the figure before the depression came along was the worthy one of £3,000,000 sterling, and was accepted by all parties in this House. Everybody knows that if the money is not expended, it goes back into the pot, and nobody suffers. For the life of me I cannot understand why the National Government, which, I believe, desires to build up the British Empire by helping to redistribute its population, should display its wares by announcing that it has cut down this possible grant, to which even the Opposition agreed very readily in the past, by one half. I know that if one was to resist this proposal to-day, he could only vote against the whole sum, and that would be ludicrous. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether there cannot be some more easy method of expansion, if necessary, than that which he indicates. When he says, "Oh, yes, if there is some big scheme to set going, we will come down to the House of Commons for legislation," we all know what that means. He may come down with the best will in the world, but he will find his colleagues so occupied with the problems of Geneva and with settling the affairs of

the world, that they will not have time to settle this question, and it will be delayed until another Session.
I hope that something will be done when the Bill comes before the House so that there will be some easier proceeding than that which has been indicated, by which the amount can be expended if necessary. I fully realise that very likely we should not expend that sum. Suppose that the Government are converted and get out of the rhythmic lethargy which has beset authorities with regard to migration all these years, and decide to try out a really big scheme, it might conceivably be that for one or two years, in order to get the scheme going, it would be necessary to increase the amount. If my right hon. Friend could get His Majesty's Government as a whole interested in the question, we might rest satisfied that they would put such a scheme through if necessary. I ask my right hon. Friend to realise that those of us who have pressed for big schemes have done so because infiltration has come to a complete cessation. Otherwise, we would not have worried very much. It is because of that cessation that we have urged some really big plans in this direction.
It may be that my right hon. Friend may say that such a scheme as I and some of my hon. Friends have advocated for some time, is too big altogether. The State is not asked to pay £50,000,000 of money. It is asked to give credit facilities to some big corporation. Why not contemplate some real scheme of settlement whereby some corporation will see settlers right through, instead of making arrangements between two Governments whereby some men may be put upon land which is undesirable and left to their fate? The success of settlement of this kind, which in the long run will give real hope to settlers, is the determination to see it through, and, if the thing is a failure, to bring the men home again.
It is deplorable that we do not get a move on. When a majority of this House supported a Motion which I tabled three years ago, we thought that His Majesty's Government would realise that it was a widespread feeling. The Secretary of State for the Dominions at that time told us to come back in eight or NI years. He said, "Things are so bad that


we really cannot get on with the business. The Dominions will not have it." The Dominions were never asked, and I am convinced that the time to plan and get ahead with all these schemes is before full prosperity has returned. If my right hon. Friend had really explored all these avenues he would have found that, if there was a real scheme whereby the Dominions were to have proved to them that the migrants were not going to be a charge upon the Dominions themselves, and that corporations in this country, backed up by Government credit, would see them through, there was not a single Dominion which would not have welcomed some initial attempt in that direction.
I know that my right hon. Friend's heart is in the right place on this subject and that he appreciates as much as anyone that we do desire to see a move once more to the Dominions. I beg of him not to allow thoughts of the past to deter him, but to strike out a line for himself. He has a wonderful opportunity to prove that he is a man of great imagination. If he carried through one or two experimental schemes, not on a vast but even on a small scale, of the kind that we have indicated, I believe that his name would go down in history as a man who carried out some big pioneering work for the British Empire.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Baxter: I share with my hon. and gallant Friend very great personal disappointment at the speech which the Secretary of State has made. I think this is the first full-dress speech since he was made Secretary of State for the Dominions, and on such an occasion he chooses as his theme that this House shall consent to the cutting down by 50 per cent. of the sum formerly allocated to assist migration to the Dominions. What is his fear? Is it that we may spend the £3,000,000? If it were possible to spend £3,000,000, then to-day he ought to be suggesting twice that amount and not one half of it. His speech is a message that is deterrent, a warning, that the migration movement may spread, and therefore he warns everybody connected with it. He says, in effect, "Do not let the movement spread, because we are setting a limit upon it."
It is a most unhappy thing that the right hon. Gentleman has done to-day,

and it is not pleasant for those of us who support the Government to find ourselves so completely in disagreement with the spirit of something that they are doing. The second Amendment will carry automatically with us, not only in the Lobby but in our hearts, but I can find no means of opposing the first Amendment, otherwise I would willingly go into the Lobby against the Government. I find in the remarks of the hon. Member for the Rothwell Division (Mr. Lunn) the same lack of the spirit of imagination which, I say with respect, as a new Member, characterises the entire House. One has only to compare the empty benches now with the scene that will take place at seven o'clock to-night when we begin to discuss the affairs of another country—Spain. The blame which I offer applies to all parties. Until recently the Liberal bench was empty, but now two stalwarts have arrived. In our own party and on the Opposition side the very thought of Empire seems to chill all enthusiasm. The hon. Member for Rothwell wants to make certain that no one who goes to the Dominions will have to undergo undue hardship.

Mr. Lunn: In assisted schemes.

Mr. Baxter: I agree that we want to reduce hardship and to give to everybody who goes to the Dominions a reasonable chance, but which is best, to go out to one of the Dominions, say, to Canada, and to struggle, with hope, or to walk the streets of South Wales, without hope? Where is character born? Not by the hopeless day after day looking for employment which does not exist in our distressed areas, but by going out to the Dominions and battling with the wind, the snow, and the rain. Those are the things which make character. Those are the things which, in conflict with them, produce character for yourself and your children. The hon. Member for Rothwell said that there was no Dominion in favour of migration at the present time. Mr. Bennett, who was Prime Minister of Canada until recently, sailed the other day from this country, after a tour of the Empire, and his words were these:
The urgent need of the Empire at this hour is emigration.
I talked with him last year, and also with many Ministers from the Dominions, and they repeated categorically the same


words that were voiced by Mr. Bennett. I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to believe that the Dominions do not want emigration.

Mr. Lunn: Mr. Bennett is the ex-Prime Minister. I would advise the hon. Member to consult Mr. Mackenzie King, the present Prime Minister of Canada. I spoke to him when he was over here in the last few weeks.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Member referred to Dominion Prime Ministers or responsible statesmen. He will not deny that Mr. Bennett is a responsible statesman. Where we are going wrong on this subject is that the Secretary of State comes here with a discouraging and heart-breaking reduction of an inconsiderable and unimportant sum in relation to the whole problem. We can have emigration on a proper scale only when we create opportunities for employment. When the opportunity for employment is made the demand for man-power is automatic. What we must do is to bring the great industrialists of the Empire together. We must say to the leaders of the textile industry here: "As leaders of the parent industry you must get into touch with your industry in Canada, in Australia, and South Africa, and you must use in the development of the Empire the same common sense and shrewdness that you use in your own business. You have sources of supply of raw materials, and markets. How much can you manufacture, say, in Canada by working along with your industry there? If you will do that, then your industry must be made responsible for the migration of 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 workers, or whatever the number may be, and the Government must be certain that the markets are established for the goods when they are made." The problem is not so very difficult or too vast. We know what Australia produces, and we know what we can consume. Once we have entered into a deal we must make sure that it is fair on both sides. The British Government has probably shown more fairness than the Dominions. As one who comes from the Dominions I am sorry to have to admit that fact. These deals can be made and they can be done on a vast scale.
I say in all sincerity that unless we can organise and populate our Dominions and Colonies we have no right to hold the amount of the earth's surface that we do to-day. There is a danger that the time may come when our wrong way of holding these undeveloped areas will come as a crushing blow to us and may be the beginning of the disintegration of this country. I would urge the Opposition, as I would urge my own colleagues on this side, not to treat this subject as a small thing. Time is passing. We have had this opportunity now for some generations. If we go on concentrating our minds purely on Europe, emptying the House whenever the Empire is mentioned, and emptying the Front Bench, we may be preparing ourselves for a future in which our children and their children will call us to account when they look back.

5.12 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I should like to support the appeal just made by the hon. Member opposite, who, I understand, has been associated with Canada. For two or three generations my family has been associated with the Dominion of New Zealand. My grandfather on my mother's side was one of the earliest settlers there, and my son, I will not say unfortunately, is an emigrant. Therefore, I have connections at both ends. We all know what a difficult and delicate problem this is. It is not a matter for this country alone. It is a question of partnership, co-operation and understanding. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right when he said that the Dominions are very sensitive about our dumping people that we want to get rid of. There is a suspicion, a wrong suspicion, that we do not send our best out to the Dominions, but rather our failures. The Dominions, the Colonies as they used to be called, were built up by the courage, the initiative and the spirit of adventure of our people.

Mr. A. Bevan: And by criminals.

Sir P. Harris: That was only a very small section. They were built up by the enterprise and the courage of our forefathers. I admit that there was the bar sinister, but that did not build up Australia, Canada or New Zealand. The Dominion with which I have connections and the Dominion of Canada, with which the hon. Member opposite is associated, were free from that taint; but let the hon.


Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) remember that in those days, under bad laws, many fine citizens, many fine men and women, were sent out to Australia, although designated criminals.

Mr. Bevan: Most of them were driven out from this country.

Sir P. Harris: Driven out, and very often they were not of the criminal class but were regarded as such because our laws were so severe.

Mr. Bevan: When I used the word "criminals," I did not mean to suggest that we sent out criminals. We sent out very good men.

Sir P. Harris: We must not forget that the Dominions have been built up by the spirit of adventure; and it is the duty of the Government to see that this spirit of adventure is not handicapped by want of means; that the men who want to go out and seek their fortunes in other parts of the world are not prevented from doing so by lack of means. I am glad the Secretary of State is going to use the excellent organisations which have done so much in recent years by increasing the percentage grant. I quite accept the policy of equal partnership. It is right that the Governments of the Dominions should show their good faith and their desire to have the people who are going to be sent out by standing in close partnership with ourselves. On the other hand, I am sorry that the total sum is limited. I agree that it is not likely to be spent, but it would be a pity that the impression should go out that we are losing heart and faith in the possibility of making use of the vast territories which are crying out for development. There is a good deal of jealousy and suspicion on the Continent and in other foreign countries, which is justified so long as we are not utilising this vast and magnificent heritage.
There was a time when emigrants were welcomed, but in the present time of serious economic problems which Australia, New Zealand and Canada have had to face, they have had to put very severe restrictions on emigrants, which, however, apply much less to the people of this country than to those of foreign countries. Let us show that we appreciate this to the extent that we are not going to limit our liabilities by reducing the total sum we are prepared to find when a case is made

out. That the money will not be badly spent is assured by the fact that 50 per cent. is to be found by the Dominion which receives the immigrants. As we shall have another opportunity on which to discuss this problem I will reserve any further remarks for that occasion.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: The two papers which are immediately relevant to our discussion are the interim report of the Overseas Settlement Board and the memorandum on the Financial Resolution. The interim report is a very interesting document. It shows glimpses that the committee do realise the possibilities of large developments, and that then they seem to be afraid of themselves. They recommend raising the percentage grant to 75 per cent. of the expenditure on certain occasions, and then they miserably proceed to suggest that the recommendation of £3,000,000 a year provided by the 1922 Act should be reduced to £1,500,000. Then they seem to repent, and in the next paragraph say that the expenditure might reach £3,000,000, or even more. Let me urge this consideration upon the Secretary of State. His own committee has had before it the possibility of an expenditure reaching £3,000,000 or more, but in the Financial Resolution no power is given to the Secretary of State to increase the £1,500,000. I would urge him to amend the Resolution in order that he might have power to increase the grant.
The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) made a speech which I have heard him make two or three times before, and if he is expressing the policy of his party then I can only describe it as the policy of the muck-rake. They keep their eyes upon the ground when they should look up and see the enormous possibilities of development in the Empire. In that case they would be only too anxious to support a policy which presses for a large-scale development of the Empire. The hon. Member committed himself to the statement that all the Dominions were opposed to emigration at the present time. Has he read the resolution which was passed by the Saskatchewan Legislature on the 27th February last year? It was to this effect:
That this Assembly is of the opinion that the time has now come when the Canadian Government should get in touch with His Majesty's Government of Great Britain with


a view to putting forward a scheme for the voluntary redistribution of the white peoples of the Empire and thereby creating a stimulation of shipping and trade under the flag.
That resolution was passed by 42 votes against five in a House of 55.

Mr. Lunn: I have the whole of the speeches made in the Legislature in Saskatchewan, and if the hon. Member will read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition he will find that the Legislature in Saskatchewan was not so united on the question.

Mr. Somerville: The resolution was passed by 42 votes to five, and there is no getting away from that fact. Mr. Bennett, the Leader of the Conservative party in Canada, has recently been travelling through the Empire, and has said that nothing struck him more than the danger in which the Dominions stood, and that they cannot hope indefinitely to keep their great spaces empty. A German writer who has been travelling in Canada says that while it may be considered that these spaces belong to the Dominions, nothing in this world can be considered certain. That is said frequently in Germany, and it is for the Government and the Governments of the Dominions to get together and draw up schemes which will meet this danger. It is not merely a question of migration or of employment, it is a question of the development of the Empire.
The Prime Minister of Australia has recently introduced the subject, and the Prime Minister of South Australia has been in conference with Sir Percy Everett, who is on the executive of the Boy Scouts, with reference to recommencing migration of Boy Scouts, one of the best forms of migration. In Queensland the New Settlers' League has been discussing the subject, and in New Zealand the Settlement Association has been meeting. The chairman of this association said that this question is not, as many people might think, an academic question but a question of life and death and citizenship under the British flag. In 1935 a conference was summoned by the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, at which many bodies interested in migration were represented. A strong resolution in favour of migration was passed, and a delegation sent

to the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. We have had many assurances, but time has been lost and is being lost. Surely the British Empire is big enough not to wait upon circumstances but to compel them. It may be that we are dreamers, but Sir Robert Hadfield is not a dreamer. He is one of the most practical men of business in the country, and in his book, published about a year ago, on Empire development, he reminds us that an Imperial Commission considered the question of Empire development from 1912 to 1917. That Commission was the result of the Imperial Conference of 1911, and the most important recommendation of the Commission was that an Empire Development Board should be set up. We have been asking for this for years. Sir Robert Hadfield says:
The British Empire has vast resources and opportunities not yet utilised but no body or organisation charged with their systematic exploration and with the helping on of their development. The activities of a nonpolitical non-fiscal Empire Development Board would benefit every citizen of the Empire by bringing about additional employment, building up fresh wealth, and improving conditions in all parts of the Empire.
The magnitude of the task is simply the measure of our opportunity. If we do not arrive at the best basis in the first instance let us at least make a start.
With regard to the board he says:
The complete organisation should be fully representative of all parts of the Empire, with a permanent organisation and secretariat in each country and a main board travelling frequently to all parts of the Empire.
That is what a practical man of business and of wide outlook says as to the way in which we should regard this great question. The hon. Member for Rothwell said that if we want to get jobs in the Empire for other people we must take the jobs with us. That is exactly what Sir Robert Hadfield recommends. We do not want to dump our unemployed on the Empire; we want to develop the Empire so that there will be work for all the workless for generations to come. And who will say that this Empire does not possess the resources and possibilities to accomplish such an achievement? If we are in any doubt as to the kind of objects to be aimed at, we find some enumerated in this book. There is, for example,


Improving methods of transport by helping on the construction of railways, tramways, roads and canals.
One of the chief obstacles to the development of Australia is the continual need for changing trains owing to different railway gauges. The unification of railway gauges throughout Australia is an object for which British capital might well be used, and on which thousands of men might be employed. Further objects are:
Assisting in plans for the construction and equipment of harbours, docks and aerodromes, in conjunction with plans for improved services from and to all parts;
Development of schemes for dams, irrigation and drainage;
Co-ordination of power generation, transmission and utilisation projects for both hydroelectric and thermal power stations;
Assisting in the establishment of new industries, with special reference to the above developments;
Co-operation in the opening of new districts for farming;
Co-ordination from the Empire development standpoint of works of afforestation and the utilisation of timber and timber product.
Those are some of the schemes that might be started by the Development Board. I put it to the hon. Member for Rothwell, who did not think it worth while to employ the workless in such schemes, that they would produce wealth and a greater flow of citizens between this country and the Dominions. Would not those projects be well worth while? Sir Robert Hadfield goes on to say that
The first effect of the establishment of an Empire Development Board would be a rapid increase in employment, with a demand for trained engineers of all kinds and other professional men, as well as skilled and unskilled manual workers, in all parts of the Empire.
There are very many things I would like to say, but I do not wish to trespass upon the time of other hon. Members. I look upon the matter in the following way: Here is the British Empire, which stands for justice and freedom—that is why it does stand. I would make a great company and call it "British Dominions Unlimited"; the board of that company would be the Empire Development Board and its object would be to develop the resources of the Empire. I want the Secretary of State to look out and look up, to see what are the possibilities, to take advantage of the great opportunities at the Imperial Conference, and to have

as the keynote of his policy not "I dare not," but "I will."

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: When this subject was last discussed in the House, I said a word or two about the opinions expressd by hon. Members opposite. After listening to the whole of this Debate, I am sorry to note that, as usual, hon. Members have disregarded what I said. I had hoped to hear from hon. Members opposite some argument justifying the speeches they had made, but I am bound to say that the House has surpassed itself this evening in the sententiousness, the meaninglessness and the platitudinousness of the speeches delivered by hon. Members. Not a single argument has been advanced by any hon. Member opposite to justify the moth-eaten generalisations they have trotted out. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) read long quotations from a book written by a very hard-headed English business man. I have rarely found anyone so sentimental as a hard-headed business man when he steps out of his business, and I trust his generalisations much less than those of anybody else.

Mr. A. Somerville: May I point out that the gentleman in question is a famous engineer and that he recommends, among other things, engineering schemes?

Mr. Bevan: He was talking about emigration as a policy and not about engineering, and I distrust his generalisations quite as much as I distrust the generalisations of hon. Members opposite. Some time ago the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made at Geneva a speech which hon. Members opposite ought to read, for it won the Genera, Election for them. They should read that speech and find out what the right hon. Gentleman said about the British Empire. He suggested that if the complaint of other nations, such as Germany, Italy and Japan, was that Imperial possessions were denied to them and that for that reason they had not sufficient opportunities for expansion, he was prepared to discuss with them the only thing that he thought was up for discussion, namely, the equitable distribution of raw materials. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest then, as has been suggested this evening in speech after speech, that, as a consequence of our Imperial possessions—the empty acres in New Zealand, Australia and Canada—we are


furnished with an opportunity which will help us to solve the unemployment problem in this country.

Mr. Baxter: I think the feeling of most hon. Members is that we should organise emigration from this country, but not shut out emigration from Europe, although there should be a considerably lesser flow of emigration from Europe.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member gives his case away at once when he says there should be "a considerably lesser flow." If the speeches that have been made by hon. Members this evening are quoted in the German, Italian and Japanese Press, they will have complete justification for all the demands of those countries that they should be given places in which to expand. Never in the whole of my political experience have I heard more utter rubbish. The House has been treated to this sort of nonsense every time there has been an industrial depression. Every time there has been an industrial depression speeches such as those to which we have listened this evening have been made from the Government Bench in this House, suggesting that one of the ways to solve unemployment and at the same time to expand the Empire is the artificial stimulation of emigration.
If hon. Members will look at the history of emigration and Imperial development, they will see that it proves most conclusively that only a negligible proportion of the Empire has been developed by Government-assisted schemes. As a matter of fact, millions of pounds have been lost to the Imperial Exchequer by the foolish artificial stimulation of emigration. When people went to Canada, to Australia and to New Zealand, they went as a consequence of industrial and agricultural development, freely stimulated, and the normal movement of population. There never has been an example in Imperial development of the artificial stimulation of emigration preceding industrial development having had any other than an impeding effect upon the development of the country. I challenge hon. Members opposite to give any illustration to the contrary. An attempt was made in the case of New Zealand in the early days. The history of New Zealand is very interesting. I am sorry the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)

is not in his place. He spoke about adventure. New Zealand was added to the British Empire because the British Fleet got lost in a fog. If it had not been for the fog, the Fleet that went out to acquire New Zealand for the Empire would have been brought back.
The point I wish to emphasise is that it is a very bad thing for this House to vote money to encourage young people to leave Great Britain and to go to Canada, New Zealand or Australia in advance of employment being provided for them, and it is particularly undesirable that they should undertake the adventure of settling in a new world in a romantic mood. Anyone who suggests that public funds should be used to encourage Boy Scouts to emigrate ought to be ashamed of himself. There could be nothing worse than taking young boys and inflaming their minds with all sorts of meaningless romanticism, and then, having thus captured their imagination, encouraging them to settle down in the Dominions; for the reality is bound to be so far removed from the mood in which the adventure is undertaken, that the reaction will be disastrous.

Mr. Baxter: Would the hon. Member keep them in South Wales?

Mr. Bevan: I will deal with the hon. Member's speech in a moment or two. The trouble with the hon. Member is that he has not given any attention to the problem; all he has done has been to trot out generalisations which have been the stock-in-trade of Imperialist tub-thumpers for 150 years, without investigating realities at all.

Mr. Levy: Are we to understand that if an arrangement is come to between the Dominions Governments and the Government of this country whereby schemes are inaugurated, it is pure rubbish to say that these young people shall go out and find employment under those schemes?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member obviously has not followed the Debate or he would not have made such a statement. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State's confidence in the Dominions Governments coming forward as partners in the schemes is to be found in the Memorandum, where there is a reference to £1,500,000 a year. The hon. Member knows very well that there is not the slightest possibility of


Australia, Canada, or New Zealand adding to their own unemployment by any such schemes. All hon. Members opposite are able to do is to quote speeches made in provincial Parliaments and at banquets, but when they are asked to furnish concrete schemes that will bear examination, they are not able to submit any.

Mr. A. Somerville: I certainly could do so, but not now.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member spoke about railway gauges and such things. One would think that we suffer from a shortage of ideas as to how to put men into work, and that the business man in question has really made an important contribution to the problem of Imperial development by saying that there are a few engineering jobs to be done in Australia. There are plenty of jobs of that kind to be done in South Wales. There is no shortage in that connection. For 10 or 15 years the Government have been bombarded from all parts of the House with schemes of work. If all business men can do is to suggest such things, then there are 615 business men in this House, for we are full of schemes of that sort.
The question hon. Members have to answer is, How does the migration of an unemployed man from Great Britain to Canada do good to Canada, whereas if he remains unemployed in Great Britain he does harm to Great Britain? If it were profitable to employ the men in Canada, the normal movement of capital would bring about the migration. It has always done so. The American continent was populated by free migration from Europe following the movement of free capital, and there would be no need to spend any Government money on this matter if industrial expansion were taking place in the Dominions as it did in America during the nineteenth century. The stories of friends, the assistance of relatives, the normal means of information available to people here would, of themselves, be sufficient to stimulate migration from Great Britain if employment were available in the Dominions. That has always been the case, and whenever that employment has not been available then, of course, migration has stopped, as it ought to stop at that point, because that is the point at which the new country fails to absorb the unemployed of the old world, and any

attempt artificially to stimulate the movement of population is bound to have unfortunate results.
In 1934 I spent some months in Canada. I visited practically all the great industrial cities and everywhere I met friends of my boyhood walking about the streets—in Vancouver, in Calgary, in Winnipeg, in Toronto. They had been walking about those streets for over a year. There are only 10,000,000 people in Canada and only 2,400,000 of them are engaged in industry and 1,200,000 have been unemployed for nearly four years. How can hon. Members suggest, as the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) suggested, that if you send a few more unemployed men to join that 1,200,000 unemployed in Canada, by some strange alchemy more opportunities of employment will be created in Canada? It may sound academic but I would say that the normal machinery of capitalist expansion has stopped, and is failing to exploit the physical resources of Canada. It has stopped there and it has stopped here, and until you find some way of investing capital in Canada profitably—because it has to be invested profitably under your system—you cannot expect the movement of population from Europe to be resumed. Therefore, all the speeches that we have had on this matter have been in my judgment, and I say so with great respect to the Committee, entirely irrelevant.
I would like hon. Members to show me why emigration should be regarded as self-evidently desirable. Everybody has started off in this Debate with the premise, as if it were self-evident, that emigration of itself is desirable, that it is a good thing that we should export some of our best manhood from Great Britain to the Dominions. Why should it be regarded as a good thing? Why is it better that a man should be in Canada than that he should be in South Wales? It cannot be said that it is because he would get employment in Canada. He will not get employment there. Therefore, the first condition of the argument is not satisfied. I suggest that hon. Members opposite should look up the vital statistics bearing on this matter. They talk as though we were always going to have a surplus population in Great Britain available for export, whereas according to statistics, unless our productivity is enormously increased in the


next 25 years our population will shrink from 46,000,000 to 14,000,000 in less than 60 years. Those figures have not been challenged. Why then is it considered desirable that you should fill empty spaces in Canada and make empty spaces in Great Britain?

Mr. Baxter: You can send them back here.

Mr. Bevan: And that is what the hon. Gentleman calls a forward-looking Imperial policy—a sort of human escalator moving both ways. Really hon. Members ought first to convince the Committee that emigration per se is desirable, and, having done that, they ought then to show how emigration can most advantageously take place. They have done neither of these things, and I wish to enter my caveat against any suggestion that we ought to encourage more young men to leave Great Britain to walk the streets of the industrial cities of the Dominions. I have more than once taken part in meetings at which young men were encouraged to leave Great Britain and go abroad, and, as I have said on a previous occasion, I am heartily ashamed of the part which I played at that time. I presided at several meetings at which officials of the Ministry of Labour spoke and painted the attractions of the new world in glowing colours, with the result that many of our young people were encouraged to go out there. Since then, over and over again, I have had letters from those young people describing the pitiful plight in which they found themselves—unable to get employment, unable to obtain relief and unable to come home.
Those are the realities which lie behind hon. Members' roseate dreams of Empire. Those are the concrete, grim realities and they cannot be covered up by generalisations drawn from the books of Henty and Ballantyne. We have to face the facts of the twentieth century and one of the facts of the twentieth century is that migration from Europe has stopped because the movement of capital from Europe has stopped. When you find a way of moving capital from Europe, migration in Europe will be resumed, but it is idle to spend public money in an attempt to stimulate an artificial movement of unfortunate people from Great Britain to

countries which are no longer hospitable, because they can no longer afford those people the livelihood which they go there to seek.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Louis Smith: We have just listened to a speech from the benches opposite which might be considered humorous if it had not been delivered on what is, to most of us, a very serious and important matter. The hon. Member while condemning my hon. Friends who spoke from this side, on the ground that their speeches were irrelevant, has contributed nothing to the Debate on the question of Empire settlement. He has given us a purely destructive speech and if it represents the make-up of hon. Members opposite, I take it to be unlikely that we shall find many representatives of that type in our Dominions as pioneers, building up the British Empire.

Mr. Bevan: I have on more than one occasion offered constructive suggestions —and I shall be very happy to furnish the hon. Member with them—as to how employment can be found in Great Britain. At present I am trying to prevent hon. Members wasting £1,500,000.

Mr. Smith: One would naturally assume that if we were not to be given the advantage of hearing the hon. Member's proposals, he might have held his peace on this occasion instead of seeking to destroy the efforts which hon. Members on this side are making in the cause of Empire development. Before learning what the Government's intentions in this matter were, I, supported by Members on all sides of the House, including enterprising Members of the Opposition, had introduced a Private Member's Bill to amend in certain respects the Empire Settlement Act of 1922 and that Bill has been put down for consideration on Friday next, if time permits. I notice from the Financial Memorandum which is now before hon. Members, that one of the Amendments suggested in that Bill has been adopted by the Government, but I sincerely deplore the proposal of the Government to reduce the amount which is to be devoted to this purpose. The statement of the Minister was extremely lucid and he gave us a very clear presentation of the Amendments which it is proposed to make in the Act of 1922. But, having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the


youngest Members of the Cabinet, I had hoped to hear from him this afternoon, not so much relative to the past, not so much about the difficulties which have arisen since the 1922 Act was put in operation, but rather something about that vision of the future, of which we might expect to hear from younger Members of the Government.
I cannot think that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone who has considered it necessary or advisable to reduce this £3,000,000 to £1,500,000. We know, in connection with the agricultural industry in this country, that owing to the increased price of wheat, the amount required for the wheat scheme will not be anything like the full amount for which provision has been made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, has the money ready to hand for this purpose and I would ask the Minister to consider very carefully the possibility of amending this decision to reduce the amount to £1,500,000. Surely this country is not without money at the present time. We have any amount of money in the banks on deposits earning very little, and I fully believe—and I emphasise this point—that not only would the Dominions benefit if we developed new industries in certain directions, but we at home would benefit equally.
A great deal of work has been done under the 1922 Act. I do not agree with those who say that the Act has failed, because 400,000 persons have been settled overseas during the intervening period and only one-seventh of the amount of capital provided for under that Act has been spent £6,000,000 instead of rather over £42,000,000. A great deal of valuable information has been obtained and is now in the hands of the Dominion Secretary. Attempts are frequently made to turn this into a political matter, but I would stress the fact that it is not a political matter at all and should not be looked upon as such. I remember hearing in 1929, the then Dominion Secretary under a Labour Government, the present Lord Ponsonby, saying that it was not a political but a scientific question. I deprecate very much the question of migration being dragged into politics at all. Why should we be so fearful in providing an odd million or two on an enterprise which without doubt, if carried out efficiently, must provide a return for this

country in the long run? It has been said in this Debate that the Dominions are not interested in this subject to-day, but the Premier of New South Wales, addressing the Royal Empire Society in London in May last, said:
I am going to take the risk of suggesting that the problem, which I would not call migration, but would rather describe as Imperial development, is much bigger than any of these schemes ever can be. If it is a question of capital investment, where else is there a safer field for investment than in the Dominions?
When, as I say, so much money is lying in the banks at 1 per cent. or less, is not this a time when we could show rather more courage than by reducing the amount available from £3,000,000 to £1,500,000?
Another point that I would like to make is that in these anxious days, internationally, our vast British possessions tend to excite the envy of the hard pressed dictators of some over-populated countries, and we should be unwise to delay the further development of our sparsely populated Dominions, where only two or three people live to the square mile as compared with nearly 700 living to the square mile in this country. The Dominions, I believe, are equally wishful at this juncture to go ahead with schemes of development and to co-operate with this country in bringing the right sort of people from England. We have a very large number of research associations that have given us a tremendous lead in this direction. The scheme for Manitoba advocated by the Emigration Settlement Group, the recent Memorandum sent by the Premier of New South Wales, the Fairbridge Farm Schools in Western Australia and British Columbia, and Doctor Barnardo's Farm School in New South Wales are only illustrations of the work which is being done. I asked a question in this House on this subject a little before Christmas, and I take it that a letter was addressed to me on that account from General Hornby, referring to the Fairbridge Farm Schools. I would like to ask the indulgence of the Committee to read a sentence or two from that letter, in which General Hornby says:
Is there not a danger of the overseas settlement authorities becoming obsessed by the Fairbridge Farm School scheme to the exclusion of schemes of family settlement? Judging by reports appearing in the Press during the last 12 months, it would appear that some people have lost their sense of


proportion. The Fairbridge School is an excellent means of fostering child migration; but it cannot do anything appreciable to meet the immediate population requirements of the Dominions. It is but a very small drop in a very big bucket. It is costly too in comparison with family settlement.
I agree that though schemes such as the Fairbridge Farm Schools have done excellent work, they are only one way of tackling this problem, and all methods should be adopted. The argument which the Minister used, that the highest expenditure in any year was only £1,250,000, does not appeal to me. Greater success could have been achieved if we had tackled the problem in a much more embracing way and not made merely piecemeal attempts. I believe that the people in the Dominions are expecting this country to do something in a big way, and I trust that at the Imperial Conference our Dominions Secretary, with his usual vigour, will bring forward something that will be ahead of anything that has been done previously. The Dominions Secretary, the present Secretary's predecessor, said only in 1935:
Since the economic depression set in three years ago, notwithstanding all the talk about people not desiring to migrate and of their losing interest in migration, there have never been fewer than 50,000 people ready, anxious, and willing to take their chance.
As I have said before, the ground has been definitely broken, and we have a tremendous amount of information in the hands of the Dominions Secretary. May we not ask him more boldly to attack this problem, to allot at least the £3,000,000 previously agreed to, and, learning from those mistakes that have been made in the past, now that the world trade depression is fast ebbing, show the world that as in past days this country has still that colonising instinct that has made it great?

6.6 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I do not propose to deal with the large issues raised in this very important Debate, but simply with one small matter of detail. We all agree that it is a very great pity to reduce the available money—not necessarily the money spent — from £3,000,000 to 1,500,000, for that will cause a great deal of depression in the Dominions and have a very bad effect. I have been

wondering why the reduction has been made, because we have not spent all that we could in the past. It is because we have to have these sums included in the Estimates, and, therefore, they have to be budgeted for, and the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to budget for is increased by that amount.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) made a suggestion which, I think, is a very proper one. He asked the Dominions Secretary whether he could not evolve some short procedure to deal with this matter rather than having to come back to the House, if he wanted more money than £1,500,000, and ask for the passage of a Bill. Could he not reorganise this Financial Resolution and the Bill which we understand is to be introduced by putting in some machinery by which, if necessary, if the money was really available and could usefully be spent, it could be raised by a simpler means than by a Bill which has to go through all its stages? Could not something be put in the Resolution and the Bill simply saying that the money could be increased from £1,500,000 to £3,000,000 or vice versa reduced from £3,000,000 to £1,500,000, by a Resolution of this House? It is simply a matter of machinery, and I think a very great deal of advantage could be gained if something of that kind were done.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I should like to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who, unfortunately, after making his rather petulant explosion, has left the Chamber.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: He has been called away.

Mr. Sandys: I understand. It was, however, evident that he was entirely out of sympathy with the whole migration movement, and as such he represents a section of opinion in this country with which unfortunately we have to reckon. He was out to discourage and to throw cold water on all the efforts which have been made in this direction. Moreover he made some very curious remarks for one who shares the views of those who sit on the Benches opposite. He said that State assistance in the form of £1,500,000 offered by the Government was quite unnecessary, because, he said, the ordinary


movement of capital would achieve migration if it were necessary and desirable. To have it put to us from those Benches opposite that all these matters must be left to the natural movement of capital really comes as a surprise to us on this side. Furthermore, he said that the matter should not be done by State assistance, but should be left to the assistance given by the relatives of those who propose to emigrate overseas. Some of us remember that only a very short time ago we heard an argument of a very different kind put forward by the hon. Member when the means test came to be discussed in this House. The idea that public policy should depend upon the assistance given by relatives is now being advocated by hon. Members opposite, and it strikes us as very curious. Lastly, he said that this Amendment for the reduction of the Vote from £3,000,000 to half that sum reflected the Government's want of confidence in the support which was forthcoming from the Dominions for the policy of Empire migration. I am quite sure that nothing was further from my right hon. Friend's thoughts when he introduced this Amendment this afternoon.
I had not intended to speak in this Debate, but I was frankly so disappointed with the speech made by my right hon. Friend that I felt I must say a few words. I had hoped that he would have been able to tell us that while perhaps in his opinion there was no immediate prospect of a revival of emigration, nevertheless he expected to see this revival in the very near future. Unfortunately, he cast a feeling of gloom on this House in so far as the question of migration was concerned. The Memorandum which we have been given refers to the "probable requirements." On page 3, in paragraph (6), it says:
It is intended to bring the amount which Parliament is asked to authorise into closer relation with probable requirements as indicated by past experience.
A line or two above it says:
This does not, therefore, mark a change of policy.
It may not mark a change of policy, but it does surely imply an acceptance by the Government of the failure of their policy in the past and of the fact that the miserable rate of Empire migration in past years is going to be stabilised. There is evidently not, in their mind, any hope

that a marked improvement is going to take place, and that, in my opinion, shows the serious nature of this reduction. It is a grave discouragement to all the efforts which are being made and which have been made not only by Governments here and in the Dominions, but by countless voluntary organisations and individuals who are doing their best to further this great Empire movement. It shows quite clearly—and I deeply regret it—that the Government expect no revival in the immediate future. I consider that it is a serious thing for the Government by action of this kind to publish abroad that they do not expect any improvement in the present unsatisfactory position of migration.
I believe, as previous speakers do, that the moment is opportune for the revival of migration and that we may look forward, if a serious and determined effort is made, to a revival of migration in the British Empire not only by agricultural settlement but also by industrial settlement, which has been little referred to to-day. I think that the hon. Member from the Front Opposition Bench who referred to the attitude of the Dominion Ministers was entirely at fault. Ministers in all parts of the Empire have declared with greater or lesser emphasis that they believed the moment was opportune for a revival of migration throughout the Empire. I remember a distinguished Dominion Minister giving an address to the Empire Parliamentary Association in St. Stephen's Hall, when the hon. Member was present, in which he declared that the time was coming in the near future when the whole migration movement could profitably and usefully be revived. This distinguished Australian Minister said categorically that in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Governments in Australia, the time had come for a change of policy. I have always felt from the speeches which the Secretary of State has made from time to time that he has the policy of migration and Empire settlement very much at heart. I am sure we all agree that he has shown himself as keen an Imperialist as any who has filled his post for many years past. I therefore appeal to him in all sincerity to reconsider his decision to reduce this grant, which will otherwise inevitably result in a serious and grave discouragement to the whole migration movement throughout the British Empire.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions can feel very encouraged by the response that this Financial Resolution has received from his own side of the Committee. Every Member who has spoken has expressed disquiet that the total amount to be allotted to Empire migration under the forthcoming Bill is to be reduced from £3,000,000, as it was under the old Act, to £1,500,000. I will give two or three reasons in a moment why I join with all the Members who have spoken on this side of the Committee in expressing disapproval of his action. I should like, first, to say one or two things about the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). The hon. Member, in the course of his somewhat excitable oration, referred to the fact that New Zealand was discovered in a fog. My knowledge does not go far enough back to know in what condition Wales was discovered, but it seems to me that some of the inhabitants of that country are still living in a fog because the hon. Member made a great harangue to try to prove that not only were the Government ill-advised to cut down the vote, but that there ought not to be any vote for Empire migration at all. Most of the hon. Member's speech was devoted to a defence of capitalism, and he pointed to the fact that the vast spaces of the United States and Canada during the last century and the beginning of this were brought to their high state of prosperity by the infiltration of migrants and the sending thither of large sums of capital, and that all this was done under capitalist and individualist enterprise.

Mr. Bevan: Go on with the job.

Mr. Petherick: The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. We hear impassioned speeches about Socialist State interference and State enterprise from those benches, of which the hon. Member is a notable Member, and now he comes to the Committee and says, "Socialism, in fact, is no good in this case; what you must do is to carry on the old laissez faire system and hope for the best."

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps the hon. Member will devote his acute intelligence to the question why it was possible for capitalism to do that in the nineteenth century and

why it is unable to exploit the physical resources of Canada in the twentieth century.

Mr. Petherick: The hon. Member now appears to be changing his argument—

Mr. Bevan: It is exactly what I said.

Mr. Petherick: What he is trying to say now is that we must go on in the old way under the capitalist system, to allow migration by infiltration and to leave the great countries beyond the seas to take care of themselves so far as capitalist enterprise is concerned. I am very surprised to hear such support of our general thesis on this side of the Committee. The hon. Member's real motives for taking up the line he does is clear. We used to hear a great deal about the Little Englander before the War, but mercifully we do not hear so much now. I would not insult the hon. Member by calling him a Little Englander, because be comes from Wales, but if I used the adjective which would be suitable because he comes from Wales I should use an expression which was so grossly unparliamentary that I should be called to order. He stated that when he went to Canada he found a number of his earlier associates walking the streets with nothing to do. Are there not, unfortunately, a large number of men in South Wales in the same position? Would the hon. Member maintain that if a scheme of State assistance for emigration were brought into being with Government help, and Government money if necessary, he would object to the unemployed man being taken from South Wales and sent to Canada with the certainty of getting a decent job?

Mr. Bevan: No, but I should say that the hon. Member should first start by providing employment for those who have already gone to Canada. When he has clone that, and if there is employment left over, I should be only too anxious to help our people to get there.

Mr. Petherick: I was coming to that point. The hon. Member and others on that side of the Committee are always saying that we must be progressive and look to the future. What he said to-day was that, because there is unemployment in the great countries of the Empire, we must not look to the future and must not make plans for the time when unemployment


will be reduced to the normal, and when, indeed, they will cry out as they have cried out in the past, for men because there are more jobs available than men to fill them. I do not wish to continue crossing swords with the hon. Member. I have done it on various occasions. It is unfortunate that we should frequently get the impression from the benches opposite, although we know that they contain some excellent Imperialists, that the hon. Members opposite have no interest in the Empire and that they are only interested in their own small sections of the country. I should like to look upon the Empire, as far as possible, as a unit in which we can all work together for a common end. I should like to feel that in years to come a man will feel as much at home from this country in Launceston in Tasmania as in Launceston in this country, and that we are all one big family.
I should like to give three reasons why I deplore the action of the Government in reducing the amount to be at the disposal of Empire migration. One is practical, namely, that although at the present time it may not he possible to resume emigra1 ion on a great scale, yet, when unemployment goes down to normal in the Dominions, it may well be possible to introduce Empire migration schemes on a considerably larger scale than we have been trying hitherto. The second reason is psychological. It is a mistake, when we have the Coronation coming this year and the great Imperial Conference to be started in June, to kick off by reducing by half the amount we propose to devote to the Empire migration scheme. My third reason is a purely technical one connected with the House. In a year or two's time my right hon. Friend may change his mind and there may be some schemes he would like to carry out, but he would find that this Financial Resolution made it possible to devote only £1,500,000 for the purpose. If he wanted to get another £1,500,000 in two years' time he could not do it unless he came to the House again for a Financial Resolution and a new Bill, with all the resultant delay and waste of Government time. As my right hon. Friend said, it may be that we do not need at the moment more than £1,500,000, but there is nothing to show that we shall not need it in future. Would it not, therefore, be more advisable to allow the figure to remain at

£3,000,000, even if, after perhaps a year or two, we shall not need the full sum?
It is rather a pity that under paragraph (b) of the Resolution, where the Secretary of State is required to increase the grants for schemes from one-half to three-quarters, land settlement is excluded. Some of us have worked for a considerable time on land settlement schemes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), whom I see sitting opposite, was chairman of a committee on which I had the privilege to serve and which brought out a number of detailed recommendations. I think a part of that scheme is going to be feasible after a comparatively short space of time, and therefore I feel that it is a pity not to allow the full three-quarters increase to become available for land settlement schemes. I suppose it is too late to ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision to reduce the amount, but I earnestly hope that he will think the matter over carefully, especially in view of the almost complete unanimity of feeling on this side of the Committee, so far as the back benchers are concerned.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Levy: I am one of those who have always felt that it is essential that the Empire should be developed and that it should be developed from a population point of view. Like most hon. Members, I have listened from time to time to Prime Ministers and other men of authority from our Colonies and Dominions, and they have always stated that those Colonies and Dominions cannot become prosperous in the true sense of the word until their populations have increased, and that increase to the extent which is desirable will not come about by the ordinary processes. Their populations must be increased by migration.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Can the hon. Member account for the poverty of India? Is that due to lack of population?

Mr. Levy: I did not mention India. I am referring to the Dominions which are sparsely populated, such as New Zealand and Australia. It may be that we have different views. It may be that hon. Members opposite think that we can retain our Empire, which we all hope to retain, by simply allowing it to go on as it is without any help. I am one of those who think that if, at the Imperial Conference, conferences are set up between


the Prime Ministers of the Colonies and Dominions and this Government, it will not' be beyond the wit of man to provide schemes which shall be beneficial both to this country and to the Colonies. When we talk of migration we invariably visualise primary production, but we fail to see that the primary products require the services of machinery, transport, engineering and the hundred and one different ancillary trades and industries which have to be called in to help in development. In my view the development of these territories will help to solve the unemployment question. I do not think there can be any doubt about that in the mind of anybody who takes the trouble to study the economic position of the Colonies and the Dominions. It is obvious that we cannot go on indefinitely allowing large tracts of land in our Dominions to be uninhabited.

Mr. MacLaren: And in England.

Mr. Levy: We are dealing with the question of migration. I fail to see how anyone can say there are large open spaces in this country unpopulated when we have 700 people to the square mile.

Mr. Bevan: But they do not live on every square mile.

Mr. Levy: I am not going into particulars so far as that is concerned. I have noticed about the speeches of hon. Members opposite that one listens in vain for constructive contributions to any proposition put forward from this side of the House. We hear nothing but destructive criticisms and I want to hear something constructive.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the hon. Member tell us why it is that Canada is the only great country that has no heavy or shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Levy: I think the hon. Member must ask the Canadian authorities. He must not ask me that question. What I am suggesting is that with the help of this Government and of those Overseas Governments which desire emigration to go into their great open spaces—

Mr. E. J. Williams: Why do you not go, for instance?

Mr. Levy: I do not think that observation is relevant. The hon. Member is doing himself an injustice by saying that.

As Members of Parliament w e are here to do what we think is best in the interests not only of the population of this country but of the Empire as a whole, and I have always held that if we are to maintain our great Empire it is essential that we should help to populate it. There are thousands of young people in this country who would be only too anxious to go to the Colonies if there were proper schemes under which they would be looked after when they arrive and looked after until they can get upon their feet. I am not one of those who believe that it is impossible for a scheme to be arranged by the various Governments concerned which will be in the interest of the British Empire. Here we are, to-day, discussing a reduction in the sum which is to be allocated for migration purposes. My right hon. Friend the Minister, one of those virile young men who should always be looking ahead, is now dealing with the past instead of with the future. We are always hearing about "the old gang." We want young men on our front benches, and when we get them there we hope they will do something in the interests of the Empire.

Mr. MacLaren: And population?

Mr. Levy: And with regard to the population. I do not know whether that applies to my right hon. Friend or not. He comes to the Committee and tells us that the Government are going to reduce by £1,500,000 the sum available, thereby restricting the possibilities of Empire settlement in the future. But I sincerely hope that in this Coronation year, when there is to be an Imperial Conference, he will take the opportunity of conferring with the Prime Ministers and the other authoritative people who will be over here to try to devise a scheme whereby we can start migration again and populate some of those open spaces which it is so necessary that we should people.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. M. MacDonald: The discussion this afternoon has been rather in the nature of a preliminary canter. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) got an assurance from the Prime Minister at Question Time that we should be permitted a full field day on the next occasion, the Second Reading of the Bill which this Resolution foreshadows, and hon. Members have to some extent


this afternoon been raising in a preliminary manner points which they wish to have thrashed out more thoroughly on that occasion. They have been anxious to ensure that when that other Debate takes place I shall not be able to shield myself against awkward questions by saying that I must have notice of them. They have mentioned some of their questions to-day, and I certainly propose to deal with them on the Second Reading of the Bill.
This Resolution deals with three points, three Amendments which we have it in mind to introduce into the Empire Settlement Act. The first is the proposal to extend the life of the Act For another 15 years. That suggestion has met with no criticism but has received, I think, the full approval of the Committee. The second suggestion is that there should be some alteration in the provisions with regard to percentage grants, an alteration which would permit the Government in certain cases to make a grant up to 75 per cent. In this case, again, the speeches show that the proposal has not met with any opposition. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench opposite who, I think, would naturally feel that he must oppose, did express a certain amount of scepticism and a good deal of mistrust of the Government's decision, but I do not think his attitude amounted to anything more hostile than that, and other speakers have welcomed that provision unanimously.
The only proposal which has not met with such a warm reception is the third one, which envisages a cut by one-half in the maximum figure which the Government can spend on schemes, reducing the sum from £3,000,000 to £1,500,000. As one hon. Member truly said, there has been universal disapproval among my own hon. Friends in regard to that proposal; and the motive behind it has been described in two ways. One hon. Member said that it expressed a loss of confidence on the part of the Government in the willingness of Dominion Governments to welcome migration again. That suggestion is quite untrue. It never entered my head at all. I have complete confidence that, when economic conditions in the Dominions permit, the Dominions will be ready and anxious to welcome

new settlers to develop those countries. Someone was critical because I was not more optimistic in my statement as to the prospects of a resumption of migration in the near future. Possibly I am rather too cautious a Scotsman, and do not count my chickens before they are hatched, but I do believe that there is a prospect, in the comparatively near future, of a beginning being made, in the case at any rate of one Dominion.

Mr. Sandys: I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to my speech. The point of my complaint was not that he had counted his chickens before they were hatched, but that he provided nothing with which to feed them if they were hatched.

Mr. MacDonald: Judging by the standard of 1926 we are providing sufficient for 132,000 of this particular kind of chicken. That is a commentary on the second motive which was attributed to the Government in making this suggestion. That motive was described as something in the nature of a loss of interest in migration. I repeat that there is no loss of interest whatever. As I said in my introductory remarks, there is another perfectly proper and practical explanation of the alterations we seek to make. The figure of £3,000,000 was put into the Empire Settlement Act 15 years ago, when we had no experience of assisted migration. There is nothing sacrosanct about that. In a way, it was an arbitrary figure. It was experimental. No one could know how it was going to work out. I think the hon. Member for Roth-well (Mr. Lunn) pointed out that in the discussion 15 years ago some people said enthusiastically, "You can spend much more." Others took the opposite view. It was a purely experimental figure, so to speak.
Now, in coming forward with fresh legislation, we need not be so much in the dark. We have had 15 years' experience, and the figure which we propose is based upon it. We have taken years when migration was at its greatest since the War. To someone who said that that was a confession of the failure of our previous migration efforts, let me point out that, in 1926, 132,000 people left this country in that 12 months and settled in the Dominions, and that there were 123,00o in 1927. I do not think that is failure, or a bad figure. To my


hon. Friends, to whose sincerity and enthusiasm I willingly pay tribute, I hold those up as model figures and figures to which we must try to get back. In order to assist that enormous volume of migration the Government spent £1,250,000. In the light of that experience we now provide that the Government may spend £1,500,000 in any 12 months, under this renewed Empire Settlement Act. I admit the force of some speeches which made the point: "Why be governed by the past? Why not be bold and go to the larger figure, because you may do better in future than you have done in the past?" We have to make our plans as closely as possible to what we think are the actual prospects, and I think we have done that in setting up the limit, so far as this legislation is concerned, of the figure of £1,500,000, which allows a good margin over the best that we have done in any year in the past.
There is some point in the argument that we may be able to do something better if prosperity comes back in a future year. The Government have had that point in mind. Therefore, I said quite literally, speaking on behalf of the Government, when introducing this Resolution, that this is not necessarily a maximum figure. It is a maximum so far as this legislation is concerned, but we have not closed our minds to the possibility of more money being wanted. Hon. Members have said: "Why cannot you introduce something into this legislation to enable you to get that amount of money by an easier process than going through the business of introducing and passing another Bill?" I considered that possibility very carefully, but the suggestion that the House should be able to increase this sum merely by passing a Resolution would be an extremely difficult precedent to create. Being, perhaps, a little more revolutionary than my hon. Friends, I considered that, but I believe that it would be a very dangerous precedent. After careful consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that the only way in which it would be proper to ask for the increased sum would be by fresh legislation. I give an undertaking that if that should prove necessary, we should introduce the legislation at the earliest convenient moment. I assure the Committee that we regard this problem

of migration as one of very great importance, and we should do everything to present the legislation to the House at an early moment.

Sir H. Croft: Could the right hon. Gentleman give some reason why the figure could not be left at the point where it now stands?

Mr. MacDonald: A great many reasons could be offered. I think that this Debate is an illustration of one reason. The figure of £3,000,000 was put into the Act many years ago, but it proved to be one that we did not get up to, or even to half of it, in one year. The result of that has been that hon. Member after hon. Member has got up and said that the Government have been half-hearted about migration, and that to show how half-hearted they have been we needed only to see how short the Government had fallen of spending the maximum sum which they could have spent. To put in a figure which you think you would not reach would be misleading and would create only misunderstanding and unjustifiable hopes. It would lead in the end to the same sort of perfectly sincere and genuine criticism against the Government. It is much more practical to accept this reduced figure, having in mind that, if in practice it turns out that some great scheme is desirable which would require greater expenditure by the Government, we have in office a Government which would be willing to introduce legislation to that end. The spirit in which the Government have put down this Financial Resolution is the desire to play their part in whatever may be the maximum of migration which is good for this country and for the Dominions when times get better. That is the spirit which I believe almost the whole House is anxious that the Government should have, and I therefore hope that we may now get this Resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.

MR. EDEN'S STATEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Blindell.]

6.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): It is perhaps symptomatic both of the state of international relations at this time and of the wide public interest taken in international affairs, that both our last Debate before Christmas, on our last Parliamentary day, and part of our Parliamentary day when we meet again, should be taken up with a discussion of foreign affairs. No one who remembers the House of Commons 15 or even 10 years ago, can be other than surprised at this phenomenon, which is not, I think, wholly explicable by the anxieties of the international situation. There is in this country, and in a great many other countries, a greater desire to understand the vexed problems of international relations than there was in those years. There is, if I may put it shortly, a greater popular interest in peace. Whatever the reasons for that, it is due in part, I think, to a realisation of the fact that whereas in bygone days wars were fought by professionals, to-day war would affect every section of every nation. But whatever the reason, that tendency is all to the good.
Unfortunately, it is not universally unfettered. By that I do not mean to say that certain nations desire peace less than others, but the absence of complete freedom in international expression and intercourse between all lands prevents the full play of world opinion. That is a state of affairs that we deplore, because we are convinced that so overwhelming is the desire of the people of the world for peace, that were all barriers to freedom of intercourse and freedom of speech broken down everywhere, threats to peace would be largely allayed. Many of our overworked Departments at the Foreign Office could then be eased down, and many of our over-choked files could be put away. Unhappily that is not the situation, and I refer to this aspect of affairs to-night only because it is one which is inevitably ever-present in the minds of anyone working in the Foreign Office, although it may not be generally appreciated elsewhere.
When the House rose before Christmas, I told hon. Members that the Government did not wish them to disperse for their Christmas holidays in an atmosphere of inspissated gloom. That gave some of the newspapers something to write about,

but I think that the whole House will agree with me that that modified element of optimism was justified. That is not to say at the moment that reasons for anxiety do not still exist, or that we can be other than ceaselessly watchful to preserve peace. Yet in the midst of these difficulties lie perhaps further opportunities for those whose aim it is to work for international collaboration. If 1937 must be a year of acutely difficult international problems—and of that there can be no doubt—it is also a year of international opportunities.
Every moment gained for peace is a reckoning on the right side. It must be increasingly evident to all how great a part this country is likely to be called on to play in world affairs this year, and how immense, therefore, is our responsibility. We must all be conscious of that. In no sphere more than in the international is there need for Parliament to be a council of state in which we all of us contribute to our utmost—not in secrecy as in some countries, but before the world—to the wise guidance of our foreign policy. I truly believe that the display of wise statesmanship by Parliament this year in foreign affairs can have an immense influence on their course, not only as instancing the deep-seated strength of Parliamentary institutions, which is in itself extremely important, but also as a constructive contribution to the tasks that confront us all. If we are to contribute of our best it is imperative that we should do all that is humanly possible to divest ourselves of the passions and prejudices to which, naturally, we are all subject, and with as little partisanship as may be to give the wisest counsel that we can. It is in that spirit that I wish to say a few words to the House to-night.
Overshadowing all other events in the international situation is the present situation in Spain. Though the conflict continues with unabated bitterness, the risk of its involving Europe in a war, though not yet wholly removed, has been definitely diminished. Intervention in the Spanish Civil War may, and I am afraid will, prolong the horrors of that war and increase the sufferings of the unhappy Spanish people. For that reason, and others, we have been from the first opposed to it, and are so still. But if any hon. Member believes that as the outcome of this civil war in Spain any


single foreign Power, or pair of foreign Powers, is going to dominate Spain for a generation, to rule its life, to direct its foreign policies, then I am convinced he is mistaken in his judgment, and I would reply to him that of all the possible outcomes of this civil war that is the most unlikely. I will tell the House why.
We should be strongly opposed to any such happening, and I have no doubt that we should not be alone in our opposition, for there would be all the 24,000,000 of Spanish people themselves. Almost the only thing that can unite Spain—profoundly, bitterly divided as she is—would be a common hatred of the foreigner. That strong partisans on one side or the other will feel gratitude for those who have helped them in the civil strife is likely enough, but, unless the whole past history of Spain is belied in this conflict, the great mass of the proud Spanish people will feel the least ill-will to those nations which have intervened the least. If we take the long view—and in an issue of this kind it is the long view that counts—intervention in Spain is not only bad humanity, it is bad politics.
None the less, we have our own national interests. What are they in this conflict? They are not that Spain should have a particular form of government, whether of the Right or Left. For us to indulge in a championship of that kind would be to enter into the war of rival ideologies which we have condemned. The form of government in Spain should be a matter for the Spanish people, and no one else. It is for that reason that we have discouraged, and shall continue to discourage, outside intervention in her internal affairs. In this connection I want to make plain something in answer to a supplementary question asked in the House to-day. There is no word, no line, no comma, in the Anglo-Italian Declaration which could give any foreign Power a right to intervene in Spain, whatever the complexion of the Government in any part of that country. Yet there are British interests in this Spanish conflict, and they are two-fold. First, that the conflict shall not spread beyond the boundaries of Spain; and second, that the political independence and the territorial integrity of Spain shall be preserved.
Ever since M. Blum took the initiative last August, all sections of opinion in this country have supported that principle. Criticism only began to make itself felt when non-intervention was found to be incomplete. Yet it is true, in the 'Government's view—though, of course, non-intervention has not worked as we would have wished it, though breaches of the agreement have caused much bitterness and have robbed the policy of much of its effectiveness in shortening the war in Spain—that none the less there can be no doubt that the policy was, and remains, the right policy for Europe to pursue. More recently we have been engaged in this problem of volunteers which has raised the whole issue of nonintervention in a still more acute form. Our own efforts have been consistently bent to stop the flow of these volunteers from every source. It is true that this question of volunteers was not dealt with in the early days of this dispute, and to that extent certain Powers, we must recognise, have a case when they complain that this was not done. Certain nations have taken unilateral action.
On Christmas Eve we and the French Government jointly addressed a Note to the other four Governments asking them to agree to take joint action to put a stop to the flow of volunteers from their countries. Replies were eventually received, after some further diplomatic activity some 10 days ago. Although these replies could not be regarded as satisfactory in all respects, they did contain certain elements of agreement on which we thought it our duty to seize and turn to advantage, if we could, without delay. So, 48 hours after receiving these answers, we addressed further communications to the five Governments, the French Government having been informed of our intention, pointing out the elements of agreement there were and asking them to fix a date with us on which we should all jointly agree to stop the flow of volunteers in advance of the system of control, of the necessity of which we were all convinced. Since then a Bill has been passed by the French Legislature in wide terms to prohibit the enlistment in French territory, or the departure from or transit through French territory, of any person of whatever nationality for service in Spain or


Spanish possessions, as well as the enlistment of French nationals outside French territory. I have no hesitation in saying that if all Governments would place themselves equally in that position we should be nearer to agreement than we are to-day.
The Portuguese Government have told us that a similar measure can be enacted at short notice under their constitutional procedure, and they are prepared to put such a measure into force on any date agreed on by the others. The Soviet Government point out that they have already expressed themselves in favour of an early general agreement, on the understanding that effective control be organised. They argue—and I think other Governments agree with them; certainly we do—that this control must be such as can, if necessary, be applied without the consent of the two parties in Spain, and they appear to accept our suggestion that the prohibition should be put into force as soon as general agreement can be reached, without necessarily waiting for the actual organisation of the control, which may take some little time. No replies have yet been received from the German and Italian Governments, but I am told that these will reach us within the next few days.
Meanwhile, there is this problem of control, and a system has been worked out under the auspices of the Non-Intervention Committee. Such a system would not present any very great difficulties if the two parties in Spain would agree, but we cannot count on that, so it has been our duty to work out a scheme which will be operative under the more difficult conditions of the two parties in Spain not agreeing. An immense amount of technical work has been done upon this matter. As the House will clearly perceive, it is a difficult matter to ensure definite control when the two parties in Spain do not agree to your operating in their country. But an immense amount of work has been done by the experts of all nations, and I hope the House will allow me to pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Plymouth, who, in the face of as much discouragement as any man could have in a task, has persevered in the attempt to work out such a scheme.
Having said that, I come to what we ourselves have been doing and I would

like to say a word about the notice which was issued, as the House will remember, on the 11th January, calling attention to the fact that the Foreign Enlistment Act was applicable in the case of the Spanish civil war. There appears to he some misapprehension as to the reasons which induced the Government to take that action. Within the last few weeks the attention of the Government has been called to the development of recruiting activities in this country. I deliberately say "recruiting," and not "volunteering," because it is the activities of recruiting agents to which our attention has been directed, rather than the purely voluntary enlistment of individual supporters of one side or the other wishing to go to fight in Spain. Recruitment has begun to be carried out in this country in various forms, and I want the House to know about it, so that it may see the situation in which we were placed. There have been agents seeking to recruit young men to go and fight in Spain, and particularly young men capable of piloting aeroplanes. The Government have been informed, for instance, of a case where a recruit was offered £40 a week, with expenses paid, to serve as a pilot in the civil war, with a bonus of £500 for every enemy aeroplane shot to the ground.

Mr. Gallacher: For Franco.

Mr. Eden: It does not matter for whom it is; it is wrong that a system of this kind should be employed. I would ask the House to observe that it is not a question here of someone going to fight in Spain for their political principles; it is a question of recruiting going on, of offering individuals money to go and take part—

Mr. Gallacher: I want to challenge the Home Secretary to give us one case of a man who has gone to support the Madrid Government for money, and who has not gone for his principle.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hear the rest of what I have to say, when he will find himself answered. The position we had to face was that this kind of inducement was being offered to young men in our country to risk their lives in Spain. That was the issue with which we were faced, and I want the House to appreciate it. We were bound to be asked, not whether it was right or wrong that they should go, but whether it was


legal or not that they should go, and that is exactly what happened. Parents and relatives, and sometimes the recruits themselves, made application to the Foreign Office, the Home Office, or other authorities to know whether this recruiting was within the law or not.
The case I have mentioned is not the only kind of case which has been brought to our notice. A short while ago application was made to the Foreign Office by a parent complaining that her boy of 17 had been recruited by an agent in London and had left for Spain without her knowledge. We were appealed to to get into touch with our Consul-General in Paris, or with some Consul on the way, and try to persuade this boy to come back. The House will see that at once the question arose whether our consular authorities should merely try to persuade the boy to come back, or whether they should tell him that his action was illegal, and, naturally, the consular authorities had to know what the position was. I have also here a statement sworn by an unemployed miner before the British Vice-Consul in Marseilles, in which he complains that he was induced, while drunk, to join up with several others for Spain. Before he got to Spain, however, he succeeded in leaving the party—whether because he was sober again, or for what reason, I do not know. He appealed to the French authorities, who, very rightly, put him in touch with our consular authorities in Marseilles. Here is his statement, and I understand that he has been repatriated. We have had similar requests for repatriation of British subjects from British consuls in several parts of Southern France. I think the House will understand that in these conditions it was impossible for the Government to consider these questions without at the same time considering whether or not it was legal for British subjects to leave this country for the purpose of fighting in Spain. The problem therefore, was not merely one of a number of enthusiastic volunteers wishing to go to Spain to fight for a principle in which they believed, but that these attempts to recruit men were being made—

Mr. Gallacher: That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make these interruptions.

Mr. Eden: Faced with these circumstances, is there any Member of the House who will say that it was not the duty of the Government to ascertain the legal position, and, having ascertained it with the advice of the Attorney-General, to make the law known? I beg the House to believe that there is no question of our having thrown away some useful international lever in advance. We had not, in truth, got the lever, but what we did attempt to do was to make use of the position of our own law and try to induce others to follow our example. I want to get this position quite clear. What we have done is to make known the existing law and to declare our intention of seeing it observed. My hope, whether it be justified or not, is that this will be an example to other nations. But that was not the point of our decision. The point was that, once recruiting had begun in this country, the Government were bound to be asked whether it was legal or not; and, the legal position having been ascertained, it was no less clear that it was the duty of the Government to make it plain. Admittedly we are in this respect in a different position from other countries which have no Foreign Enlistment Act. We are in a different position from the French, who have had to pass this Bill in order to enable them to act at all. What we have done, and surely this is the elementary duty of every Government, is to make plain the operation of our own law. I hope that that explanation, which is as fair a statement as I can give of the position as we found it, will have done something to remove what I believe to be a genuine misconception on this subject.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene for a moment? He has said that the illegality arises when somebody starts recruiting for a war. Am I to understand from that statement that young men who support the principle and go voluntarily of their own free will to Spain are still within their legal rights?

Mr. Eden: I would not like the hon. Member to understand that. I think the declaration is quite clear under the Foreign Enlistment Act. The point I was making was that it was the recruiting which resulted in people coming to us and asking, "Is this legal or not?"


Recruits, and parents of recruits, came to us and asked, "Is this legal or not?" and we had to examine the position and announce the illegality. The legal position is clear, and, if necessary, my Noble Friend who will wind up the Debate tonight can quote to the hon. Member the text of the Act.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the interest which the House has always shown in the humanitarian side of what we have been trying to do in Spain. The House will learn with regret, and particularly those hon. Members who have been to Spain lately, that the prolonged negotiations for the exchange of prisoners on a large scale, to which I referred just before the House rose, have still not resulted in their release. Both in the North of Spain and in other areas, hitches have unfortunately occurred, and, although our information on the subject is necessarily incomplete, I must admit that neither side appears to us to be altogether free from responsibility for the failure. In any event our warships and our consular officers continue to be available to bring about these exchanges. Negotiations are still going on in many parts of Spain, and we still hope for further progress in this work. Perhaps I can present one more encouraging aspect of this picture to the House. The House may perhaps remember that, as a reprisal for the capture of the German steamship "Palos," the Spanish steamer "Aragon" was seized by a German warship. A few days ago the crew of the "Aragon" were brought, by the German man-of-war that captured them, to the neighbourhood of Malaga, where the officer in command intimated he was prepared to land the men, but he would not enter Spanish territorial waters. In view of the difficulty, communication was made, first with a British destroyer, and then, through the Foreign Office, with the Spanish Government, and with the approval His Majesty's ship "Achates" collected over 30 men from this German warship and landed them at Malaga. I instance that to show the sentiment which there is towards the work which our British consular officers and the Navy are doing on the spot.
I turn now to another grave political subject, that of the position which has arisen in Morocco. On 8th January the French Ambassador informed me that his Government had received news of the

impending arrival, in the Spanish zone of Morocco, of a strong contingent of German volunteers. He told me that preparations for their reception, in the form of barracks and food supplies, were being made, and that German engineers were engaged on fortifications near Ceuta. This news naturally caused anxiety to the French Government, in view of their own position in Morocco and in view of the provisions laid down in their Treaties of 1904 and 1912 with Spain. Perhaps, to make the position clearer, I may explain to the House that, by the Franco-Spanish Convention of 1904, Spain was debarred from invoking the assistance of a foreign Power in her sphere of influence in Morocco. At the same time reports of an alarming character were also appearing in the French Press, including allegations that German contingents of more than 1,000 men each had landed at Ceuta and Melilla, the establishment of a German commercial monopoly in the zone and so forth. I should not like the House to think that His Majesty's Government had been either careless or unobservant in this matter. Just before Christmas I had already instructed His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier to furnish a detailed report covering any non-Spanish activities in the Spanish zone. In view of the French Ambassador's statement to me I asked the Consul-General to report by telegraph such information as he had already obtained, particularly as regards the landing, or preparations for landing of German troops and as regards fortifications in the neighbourhood of Ceuta. The answers that I have received have been of a generally reassuring character.
The House will recall that on 11th January the German Chancellor gave a positive assurance to the French Ambassador at Berlin that no German force, apart perhaps from a few technical experts, were in the Spanish zone of Morocco and that he had no intention of sending German forces there or occupying any place in the zone. The German Foreign Minister gave a similar assurance at the same time to our Ambassador in Berlin. After that, as the House knows, the German Foreign Minister and the French Ambassador drew up a joint communiqué, which has since been published. Within the last few days we have received a further telegram from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier to


the effect that the Spanish High Commissioner at Tetuan had sent an invitation for British military officers from Gibraltar to visit Ceuta or any point in the Spanish zone, and he himself suggested a visit from a British warship to Ceuta or Melilla. That invitation was accepted and one of His Majesty's ships has now visited both Ceuta and Melilla. The reports that we have received as a result of this visit are generally of a reassuring character so far concerns the alleged landing or preparations for landing of German troops. The House may rest assured, however, that His Majesty's Government will continue carefully to watch the situation in this region, for they are closely concerned in the maintenance of the position in the Spanish zone as laid down by the treaties now in force. I have thought it right to give the House a full statement of the position on this subject in view of the reports which have appeared in the Press and in view of our special interests in the area concernd. [Interruption.] I have not studied the reports. They have just come in. I have given the House the information that I have.
There is one other event during the Recess with which I wish to deal, namely, the joint declaration of His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government in reference to the Mediterranean and the exchange of letters that accompanied it. It is well to recall the origin of this declaration. It would be idle to deny that the course of the Abyssinian conflict left behind it a certain embitterment of relations between this country and Italy. We here know perfectly well that the action that we took in the Abyssinian dispute was not taken from an Imperialist motive. Whether hon. Members think we took too little or too much, there is no doubt anywhere as to our motive. We took that action, as we thought we should, in fulfilment of our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations. We must, none the less, realise 'that that view has never been wholly understood in Italy. In any event, the prominent part that our Government took in this dispute had a serious effect on Anglo-Italian relations. In these conditions the House will perhaps recall that Signor Mussolini made a speech at Milan in which he referred to the interests of our two countries in the Mediterranean.

We did not ourselves wholly agree with the definition given by the head of the Italian Government of our interests and the House will perhaps recall that in November last I sought, on behalf of the Government, more clearly to define those interests. May I repeat what I said.
For us the Mediterranean is not a short cut but a main arterial road … Freedom of communication in these waters is … a vital interest, in the full sense of the word, to the British Commonwealth of Nations.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1936; col. 283, Vol. 317.]
Subsequent to that, a series of statements were made in both countries, one by the Prime Minister, which indicated a desire to improve relations. To do this it was decided to attempt to seek agreement upon a joint declaration. This declaration is neither a treaty nor a pact but it marks, we hope and believe, the end of a chapter of strained relations. It marks no departure in policy by His Majesty's Government. It neither calls for nor embodies any concession from us, neither of course does it involve any modification of any one of our existing friendships. But that this declaration has been of service to an appeasement in the Mediterranean there can be no manner of doubt. If hon. Members want evidence of that, I do not ask them to take the view of the Government but to take the view of the nations in the Mediterranean and, if they will observe the situation there, they will find not only that the French Foreign Minister himself warmly welcomed the declaration on the very day it was announced in a statement to the Press, but that since then similar welcomes have been given by a number of Mediterranean States with whom we have particularly friendly relations. I refer to Turkey, Jugoslavia and Greece. In accordance with our Treaty obligations, the Egyptian Government also were kept fully informed and looked with favour on what had been done. All that I submit at this moment —I ask for no judgment and no opinion now—is that a good standard by which to judge of this agreement is the opinion of these Mediterranean countries.
I should like to meet in advance a criticism which may perhaps be made of the relation of this declaration to events in Spain. May I remind the House again that this declaration was originally intended to clear up misconceptions which were a legacy of the immediate past? As the Spanish conflict was actually raging at


the moment the negotiations were proceeding, and a number of disquieting reports had reached us about the Balearic Islands, we thought it right to make use of this opportunity to clarify the attitude of both our Governments towards the integrity of Spanish territory. While, therefore, the text of the actual declaration completely covers Spain in itself, we thought it desirable to emphasise this fact in an exchange of notes in which the Italian Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Italian Government, states that so far as Italy is concerned the integrity of the territory of Spain shall in all circumstances remain intact and unmodified.

Mr. Bellenger: A scrap of paper!

Mr. Eden: If I had not got it the hon. Member would be the first to complain. It might be suggested that while we were discussing these matters the opportunity should have been taken to deal with nonintervention in Spain. In reply to that I say that this matter of non-intervention in Spain was much more than an issue between England and Italy. It was an issue that was then being dealt with by a considerable number of Powers. To have attempted by ourselves to secure a solution of the problem would not only, I am convinced, not have achieved results, but might very well have further complicated an already sufficiently complicated situation.
I should like now to say a few words on the general international situation. I crave the attention of the House because what I have to say is perhaps of rather more gravity than what is ordinarily said by a Foreign Secretary in the course of a Debate. I am leaving to-morrow for Geneva to attend one of the three regular meetings of the Council. We shall there be confronted with a formidable agenda, which is in itself an indication of the important part, whatever its critics may say, that the League plays in international affairs. It will be our objective to try to emphasise and widen that part. But before leaving for that session there are certain remarks that I want to address to the House. In recent speeches I have endeavoured, both in the House and in the country, to outline the objectives of our foreign policy at this time and the means by which those objectives might be realised. I am not going to attempt to repeat those speeches, yet in the first speech made in the New Year there are

certain factors that we have to face. His Majesty's Government are at present engaged in the active prosecution of the re-equipment of their three fighting Services. Though we are convinced that this is an indispensable means to our objective, it is not our objective. This remains, as I have previously stated, the negotiation of a European settlement and the strengthening of the authority of the League of Nations. We are prepared to co-operate in the common work of political appeasement and economic cooperation. If this work is to succeed, it needs the collaboration of all and, if that collaboration is forthcoming, there cannot be any doubt in the mind of anyone in this House or elsewhere that we can create a better, saner and more prosperous Europe in a world at peace.
How is that to be done? Not only must the world reduce its expenditure on armaments, because it is already lowering its standard of life, but it has to learn the ways of economic co-operation so that the standard of life can be raised. Let us never forget that our objective in this country must be the prosperity of all, by which I mean the raising of the standard of life in the countries in which it is to-day low as well as its further improvement where it is to-day comparatively high. We are willing to help towards a further advance along the line of increased economic opportunity, but this should be in our view on one condition. Economic collaboration and political appeasement must go hand hi hand. If economic and financial accommodation merely result in more armaments and more political disturbance, the cause of peace will be hindered rather than helped. On the other hand, a new and freer economic and financial collaboration based upon solid and well-conceived political undertakings will be a powerful aid towards the establishment of a unity of purpose in Europe. Ultimately, and fundamentally, the objects of all honest political endeavour, in whatever country, must be the raising of the standard of life. We know well enough from the resources of science to-day that that can be done if it is undertaken in an atmosphere of peace and mutual confidence In engaging upon this task there are certain things which we do not accept. We do not accept that the alternative for Europe lies between dictatorship of the Right and the Left. We do not accept


—and let me make this quite clear—that democracies are the breeding ground of Communism. We regard them rather as its antidote. We are not content to see Europe arming feverishly under the contending standards of rival ideologies. There is a better way. We know it, and we wish to enter upon it.
And so I must close this review with a few words about Germany. The future of Germany and the part she is to play in Europe is to-day the main preoccupation of all Europe. Here is a great nation of 65,000,000 people in the very centre of our Continent which has exalted race and nationalism into a creed which is practised with the same fervour as it is preached. All the world is asking at this present time whither these doctrines are to lead Germany, whither they are to lead all of us? Are they to restore to her the position of a great Power in the centre of Europe enjoying the respect of other Powers, both great and small, and using the manifold gifts of her people to restore confidence and prosperity to a world heartily sick of feuds and antagonisms and ardently desiring a return to normal conditions of work and partnership? Or are they to lead her to a sharpening of national antagonisms and to a policy of even greater economic isolation? Europe is to-day seriously asking herself what are the answers to these questions, for Europe cannot go on drifting to a more and more uncertain future. She cannot be torn between acute national rivalries and violently opposed idealogies, and hope to survive, without bearing scars which will last for a generation. Germany has it in her power to influence a choice which will decide not only her fate, but that of Europe. If she chooses co-operation with other nations, full and equal co-operation, there is nobody in this country who will not assist wholeheartedly to remove misunderstandings and to make the way smooth for peace and prosperity.
But it is idle to imagine that we can cure the evils from which we are suffering by mere palliatives; no mere local remedies will suffice. There must be no reserves or evasions on the part of any nation—whatever its ideology, and whatever form of government it prefers itself—in co-operating with others and

abandoning any form of interference in the affairs of others. We cannot cure the world by pacts or treaties. We cannot cure it by political creeds no matter what they be. We cannot cure it by speeches, however lofty and peace-breathing they may be. There must be the will to co-operate, which is unmistakable. That will can manifest itself in certain very definite ways—by abandoning the doctrine of national exclusiveness and accepting every European State as a potential partner in a general settlement, by bringing armaments down to a level sufficient for the essential needs of defence and no more, and by accepting such international machinery for the settlement of disputes as will make the League of Nations a benefit to all and a servitude to none.
These things must be stated clearly at this time at the beginning of a new year. We ourselves have no greater desire than to co-operate fully with others, and herein we make no exceptions. We shall respond fully to the same desire, wherever it manifests itself, and we shall work for the greatest possible solidarity in the belief that, in their hearts, that is what the vast majority of people in every nation ardently desire.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I am quite sure that everybody in this House will agree with the last words of the right hon. Gentleman, that we all wish for the fullest co-operation between all nations, and that we wish for peace. But the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking and telling us of what is occurring now in the world, and it seemed to me that when he said at the start that he wished to keep free of party, he went so far that he freed himself from any idea of being a partisan of the rule of law against anarchy and of right against might. The right hon. Gentleman invites Germany to join with the other States of the world. He says that there are conditions. What are those conditions? They are that there should be some standard of dealing between State and State as between civilised human beings in a community. That condition, to my mind, cannot be achieved unless there is some reasonable recognition of right. My first complaint against the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the whole of his treatment of the Spanish question is, that he always treats the


Government of Spain and that of General Franco side by side, and as governments of equal validity. We cannot agree to that. I have here a quotation from a speech made by M. Blum in the Chamber of Deputies on 5th December. He said:
I repeat, after the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that in Spain there is for us only one legal government, or, to express myself better, only one government. The principles of what we might call democratic law coincide in this respect with the indisputable rules of international law. I recognise that the direct interest of France includes and calls for the existence on Spanish soil of a friendly government and of a government independent of other European governments.
The point he emphasised was that there was only one legal Government in Spain. That is our feeling here. The Government always seem to take the view that there are two parties in Spain, and that their claims are of equal validity, and to accept that is to throw away the strength of the position of the democratic States in the world to-day, because we are faced—let us be quite frank about it—with the drift of the whole world towards anarchy. You have States which entirely disregard obligations. They tear up treaties that are made, and they carry on making a new treaty while breaking another. We feel that it is very little use to have signatures unless signatures are to be honoured. There was a remarkable cartoon the other day of the right hon. Gentleman as an autograph hunter going with a book before these dictators and getting signatures. It was a bitter cartoon and contained a good deal of truth. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman telling us of the present position with regard to Spain, I was struck by the impotence of his conclusion. I have said again and again in this matter, that the essential element is time, and that, whenever you are thinking of a new agreement, there is always the danger that whatever proposal you make will be anticipated, so that the horse escapes before the stable door can be locked.
The difficulty of non-intervention agreements all through has been that agreements have been anticipated by the Fascist Powers. I think that that is what is going on at the present time. Nonintervention was adopted because it was believed that there was a danger of war. The right hon. Gentleman says that that danger is not wholly removed. I am glad that he says that it is less. The Non-Intervention Agreement has definitely

failed in preventing a situation in which there are possibilities of war. I do not believe that there have been any genuine intentions to make the Non-Intervention Agreement effective on the part of the Fascist Powers. I consider that there is abundant evidence that the Fascist Powers planned the revolution in Spain long before it broke out. There is documentary evidence, and you have the same thing right from the start. You have had a continual support of the rebels against the Spanish Government, and, in effect, if we were living in a world where international law was respected, those actions would amount to aggression. We have slipped so far in anarchy that we practically shake hands in the middle of proceedings while aggression is still going on. We have the piling up of munitions, then a very tardy agreement for non-intervention, and then a breach of non-intervention.
Now we have the question of volunteers. You cannot call the German and Italian troops in Spain and Morocco volunteers. You cannot volunteer, if you belong to a Fascist State, unless you manage to escape from it. They are in no sense volunteers; they are instruments of dictatorship. You have a steady piling up in Spain now of immensely powerful forces. The right hon. Gentleman tried to give us some comfort with regard to Morocco. He did not give me very much comfort. It does not appear that our officers were allowed to go to the essential points in Morocco where they could see something. The report of the "Times" correspondent of last Monday was a very disturbing document. You can always deny that there are troops there, but because you dress them differently and say that they are not troops is no proof that they are not troops. There can be no doubt that very considerable forces are in Morocco.
Let me deal for a moment with the question of the volunteers. On the 4th December the volunteer question was raised at the Non-Intervention Committee, and on the 9th December a report was sent round. On the 14th December Italy "agrees in principle." I should like to know exactly what "agrees in principle" means. On the 24th December, according to well-founded reports, 6,000 Italian troops were landed. On the 1st January 4,000 Italian troops were landed, and on the 2nd January the Mediterranean


agreement was signed. I suggest in all seriousness that that action, at the very time when the agreement was being signed by the right hon. Gentleman, ought to cause him a good deal of indignation. It is all very well to say that these are two quite separate things, but the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman signed that agreement and at the very time that he signed it troops were being sent in. Surely, he must have known about that. If not, we ought to get better information than we do. The landing of troops is a very disturbing thing when just at that point this agreement is signed.
There seems to be a habit on the part of the Government to make pacts with Fascist States just when they are committing acts of aggression. This last agreement is a kind of parallel with the hurried naval agreement with Germany which was made during the Hitler aggression. Let us note what has been done by the Government in regard to the ban on volunteers. I think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was extraordinarily lame. He said that action had to be taken now because volunteers were going out, and the Government had no option but to put the law into force, Surely, he knew that volunteers have been going from this country for weeks and weeks. Why did he have to wait until, he says, recruiting stations have been opened? If there is an obligation on the right hon. Gentleman to enforce the law, surely that obligation existed as soon as it was known that any volunteer was going. The Government have put the ban into operation at this particular moment and have used that ban as a sop to Mussolini and Hitler. I do not believe in throwing sops to Dictators. The Foreign Enlistment Act is an extremely doubtful law. The Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted, but I have known law officers in this House wrong before now.

Mr. Maxton: The Home Secretary, too.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton) will remember what occurred in regard to the deportees from the Irish Free State. We have to consider the different circumstances today compared with the time when the Foreign Enlistment Act was passed. It

is extraordinarily difficult to say that General Franco is a friendly Power. The whole matter ought to have been very carefully considered by the courts before this warning under that Act was issued. Why was it not done before? Why wait till this moment? The right hon. Gentleman says that certain cases have arisen. He has put this ban on volunteers and he makes it as a sort of gesture to the Fascist Powers in the hope that they will follow his example. We know the mistake that was made before in regard to munitions, in imagining that by taking action of that kind you will induce the Fascist Powers to fall into line.
There are other undesirable things that the Government are doing. One of them is that they do not recognise which is the legal Government of Spain. They are now falling in with the suggestion: that the legitimate Government of Spain must not be allowed to use its own money. The Government of Spain has certain funds and yet the people who believe in non-intervention want to put a ban on the Spanish Government using its own money. The fact is that through all this business the Government have favoured General Franco. Right the way through in the proceedings of the Non-Intervention Committee the tendency always has been to say to the Fascist Powers: "We will put the best construction on every one of your actions and the worst construction on everything that is done by the Spanish Government." I think there is a definite bias in favour of General Franco because he is regarded as representing the governing classes, the privileged classes of Spain.
The Government are on this account disregarding justice in this matter, acquiescing in breaches of international law by the Fascist Powers, and ignoring the interests of this country. When I have to speak on foreign affairs I always find myself looking below the Gangway and seeing the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), and then I recognise that there is someone who will probably get up and mention that there is such a thing as the British Empire. This Government always seems entirely to ignore the Imperial interests that used to belong to the Conservative party. I notice that M. Blum in his speech spoke of the interests of France and his anxiety as to what the position


would be beyond the Pyrenees. I should have thought that this country had some concern with our position in the Mediterranean. The right hon. Gentleman said so. He said that the Mediterranean was one of our main routes. But who are the masters of Spanish waters at the present time? The Germans and the Italians. They become bolder and bolder. What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman saying that he stands up for democracies, when Mussolini tells him that democracies are rotten? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the strength of Parliamentary institutions, but it seems to me that all the time he bows down to every whim of the Dictators. The reports of what is happening in regard to shipping around the Spanish Coast are extraordinarily disturbing. I should like to know how far we are even looking after our commercial interests. It is time that we had a change of attitude on the part of the Government if this country is to have any influence in world affairs.

Mr. Gallacher: A change of Government.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member says, "A change of Government." That would be the best thing of all.

Sir H. Croft: The master's voice.

Mr. Attlee: Every scheme that is suggested is always made futile by the fact that the Fascist Powers prevaricate, hang about and send notes and reservations backwards and forwards until they have done all that they want to do to suit General Franco. So the war goes on. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that non-intervention had not entirely shortened the war. I suggest that it is one-sided intervention that has caused the war to continue all this time. We ought to realise that non-intervention of this kind is a farce and that the Spanish Government should be given its undoubted right to obtain arms for its defence. It is time that the non-intervention Powers got together to end this farce and that our Government took the lead. The Government have played a leading part against non-intervention, but it has been mainly a leading part in retreat. Those Powers that are genuinely anxious to sec this struggle brought to an end and genuinely anxious that the Spanish people should manage their own affairs

would welcome a stand by our Government, a statement that they will restore to the Spanish Government its right, that they will see that British shipping going to the Spanish Government will be protected and that General Franco and his friends, if they take any steps against those ships, will be treated as pirates. It is about time that we ceased to accept the dictates of Berlin and Rome.

Mr. Wragg: What about Russia? There must be a large number of Russian troops in Spain.

Mr. Attlee: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give me any evidence of that. I know that there are a certain number of technicians, only a few, but I think that there are no Russian troops in Spain. The real trouble is that we are proceeding on the basis that the Fascist Powers are prepared to honour their word. I hope that in time they will honour their word, but throughout these proceedings we find that they are laughing in their sleeves. I want to see the scheme of control definitely accepted and worked, and that there shall be a definite time limit during which it shall be accepted. Failing that, we should do away with the farce of non-intervention. If it be true that there is danger of war, then that is not a matter for the Non-Intervention Committee but for the League of Nations. Intervention in Spain by Powers who are intervening against the legitimate Government of that country is an act of aggression under the Covenant of the League and the matter should be dealt with by the League.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that there should be a political as well as an economic settlement, but you cannot get your economic settlement unless you have some basis on which you can trust the people with whom you are dealing. I agree with his suggestion, and we should be only too glad if these countries would say that they will come into the comity of nations and try to build up prosperity for all, but at the present time it seems to me that under the pretence of non-intervention we have a one-sided intervention, which is a mockery to the Spanish people, in the interests of the ambitions of dictators. The right hon. Gentleman says that we do not believe in these ideologists either


of the Right or the extreme Left. I agree. We believe in democracy, but if democracy is to survive it must be prepared to stand up to the dictators.

8.16 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I am sure that the whole House listened with attention and with a large measure of approval to the eloquent speech which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs delivered at the beginning of this Debate. It is, I am afraid, a not infrequent experience for those of us who sit on this side of the House to listen to the speeches of the Secretary of State with the liveliest approval and hope, and to be gravely disappointed by the action of the Government which follows the speeches. The right hon. Gentleman has said truly that the remarks which he had to address to the House in this the first Debate of the new year, were of a grave character. He spoke of the importance of financial and economic co-operation between all the nations of the world, and I was glad to hear him say, that the Government would be no party to giving financial or other concessions to other Powers unless they were prepared to co-operate not only in the financial and economic but also in the political field. The Leader of the Opposition joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and said that he did not think the Secretary of State had made the position of the Government sufficiently clear. I rather agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and I think there is one point which the Under-Secretary of State should make clear although it seemed to me that it was implied if not explicitly stated in the speech. It was this. A condition of co-operation between ourselves and other European Powers must be not only, as the Secretary of State said, economic disarmament and military disarmament as well—I was glad to hear him say that—but also that foreign Powers must be prepared to accept third-party judgments in international disputes. If I may respectfully say so, I think the Leader of the Opposition was justified in calling attention to the omission of that statement in the speech of the Secretary of State, and I am sure that the House will be glad if the Under-Secretary of State can supply the omission.
For the rest I say that while the Secretary of State is still, as he has been in the past, a firm advocate of economic as well

as military disarmament, that while he realises the fundamental importance of the economic question to the problem of peace, we remember that only two months ago there was a financial agreement between ourselves, the French Government and the United States of America which was to lead to economic arrangements at least between friends. Whatever may be the difficulties in making economic arrangements with countries whose policy you distrust, there should be no difficulty in making economic arrangements with your friends. Yet while France and Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Belgium and Holland and Latvia, are making definite reductions in their tariff barriers, are advancing on the lines of economic disarmament, the only economic action which His Majesty's Government have taken has been to increase tariff barriers. The Secretary of State shakes his head. He cannot be aware that there have been Import Duty Orders issued since these declarations were made, and that there has been only one reduction of a tariff duty, and that is on second-hand typewriters.
It is, I am afraid, of somewhat grim significance that when the right hon. Gentleman makes a speech on these grave questions in his first address in the New Year and asks for the support of all quarters of the House, when he tells us what an advantage it would be not merely to this Government but to the peace of the world if we could give him our support in his constructive proposals, on the Government Front Bench there should be only two of his colleagues in the Cabinet to support him when he makes that speech. It only strengthens the suspicion which many of us have felt for some time, that while the right hon. Gentleman himself is on the right lines, and is striving to keep the policy of this country on the right lines, he is being ill-supported by his colleagues in the Cabinet. I hope that we shall have speeches from other Members of the Cabinet supporting the right hon. Gentleman in this House; supporting his plea for disarmament, for economic disarmament, and then we may be able to believe in the sincerity of the Cabinet's foreign policy and in the authority with which the Secretary of State ought to speak in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the joint declaration of the


Italian and British Governments and said that it marked the end of a chapter of strained relations between the two peoples. In so far as it does that I am sure that we shall all welcome it. It must appear to the Italian people as somewhat of a paradox that while there is nothing but feelings of the deepest friendship in this country for the Italian people, we should have so strenuously opposed their Government's policy in Abyssinia. We have no desire to hinder them in their search for prosperity. On the contrary, we have nothing but feelings of friendship for them. The stand which we took on the Abyssinian dispute was a stand on what we felt to be a vital issue of principle, vital to the future peace of the world. For my part I only regret that the stand taken by the Government was not firmer, but at the same time I have the most sincere feelings of friendship for the Italian people, and if, without departing from the firm ground of principle based on the Covenant of the League, we can restore friendly relations with the Italian people, and if I was convinced that this agreement would indeed work to that end, I should warmly support it; but when the right hon. Gentleman assured us that it is, as it would certainly appear on the face of it, an agreement to maintain the status quo in the Mediterranean and to respect the territorial integrity of Spain, I cannot help feeling not entirely convinced that it will be successful in those objects, and my doubts are very largely due to the somewhat grimly significant fact, to which the Leader of the Opposition has already referred, that on the very day before it was signed, no fewer than 1,500 Italian soldiers were landed at Cadiz. It seems to me extraordinary that during the negotiations no undertakings appeared to have been sought or given about the continuance of Italian intervention in Spain.
The Secretary of State said that the Declaration was welcomed by other countries. I do not think we can be very much surprised by or gain very much encouragement from that. What is the natural reaction when two countries make an agreement which would seem satisfactory to them? Naturally, all good neighbours must be pleased and must formally express that pleasure. I am afraid I do not see anything remarkable in that, and I cannot agree with the

Secretary of State that that is a good criterion by which to judge the value of this agreement. What is the effect of the Declaration? I have studied an interview which was given by Signor Mussolini to a friendly German journalist —and I emphasise the word "friendly" because very often journalists who are less friendly fail to understand the precise meaning which their interlocutor is endeavouring to convey to them—and in the course of that interview Signor Mussolini treats the democracies with derision. He said democracies are done for. I do not know from where he got that idea. When I look at the record of democracy in this country, in the United States of America and in France in recent years, I think that record can well bear comparison with that of the dictatorship countries, and the condition of the people in the democratic countries can well bear comparison with the condition of the people in the dictatorship countries.

Mr. Thurtle: He got that notion from our Foreign Office.

Sir A. Sinclair: I wonder, because, as a matter of fact, Signor Mussolini went on to say something else which I cannot help thinking he got from the source which my hon. Friend suggests. He went on to say that the democracies are like sand, like shifting sand. From where did he get that? Had he perhaps some faint recollection of a speech made at Geneva by the present First Lord of the Admiralty about 18 months ago? Had he some recollection of conversations which that same right hon. Gentleman had with the French Prime Minister a few months later? Had he some recollection of what happened to that right hon. Gentleman as a result of those conversations, and had he then some further recollection of a fourth volte face which was made by this very Government on the vital issue of the Abyssinian dispute? Had he some recollection, too, of the way in which the dictatorship countries, not only in Abyssinia but in Spain, have steadily and ruthlessly forged ahead in defiance of the opposition of the democratic Governments?
What did Signor Mussolini say in that interview about the Declaration itself? He said that it strengthens the Berlin-Rome axis. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs


told us that the Declaration was welcomed by Greece. Perhaps it was, but it is relevant to observe that since its conclusion, the Greek Government have given a contract for the supply of new munitions to German firms. I am afraid that the conclusion of this agreement will convey to the country and to the world the feeling that our Government is not standing up to these Fascist and Nazi dictatorships as they ought to do, and are not giving the support that they ought to give to the French Government in the grave perils which are facing them at the present time. The Secretary of State also told us that Signor Mussolini undertook to observe the status quo in the Mediterranean. How far does that guarantee carry us in face of this interview which has been given since the Declaration was signed? In the course of the interview, the friendly German journalist, Herr Strunk, asked Signor Mussolini whether the erection of a Soviet State in Spain, or in part of Spain—in Catalonia for example—would signify a threat to the status quo in the Mediterranean, as guaranteed in the Anglo-Italian agreement, and the Duce replied shortly, "Of course." Consequently, if, in fact, the Catalonian people, in the exercise of their sovereign rights, choose to set up a Soviet state, Signor Mussolini would feel himself released from the obligations of this Declaration as regards the Balearic Islands or, presumably, any Spanish territory in the Mediterranean. In view of these facts, it seems to me that there has been grave weakness on the part of the Government to sign this agreement without having any undertaking from the Italian Government about intervention in Spain.
Let me pass on to consider the problem of non-intervention. Of course, nonintervention, as the Secretary of State said, is the right policy. I have advocated it from the beginning and I advocate it still, but always on the assumption which I have explicitly stated and state again to-day, that non-intervention must be made effective. Even as it is, as the Secretary of State truly said, it has enabled the peace of Europe to be maintained, in spite of the war in Spain, for six months. If others had co-operated and fulfilled their obligations as members of the Non-Intervention Committee, it would probably have brought peace to

Spain by now. But as long as it is imperfectly and partially applied, while keeping the peace of Europe at present, it involves grave dangers for the future. The Secretary of State said that every month gained for peace is a reckoning on the right side. In so far as it is a month of peace and not a month of war, I agree with the Secretary of State; I would agree with him still more if he had said that every month gained for peace and which strengthened the foundations of peace for the future, was a reckoning on the right side; but if it is merely a month gained for peace by weakness in the face of Fascist encroachments, it is not a month to be reckoned on the right side. Intervention has not been stopped; intervention has increased under this agreement and is still increasing. Why, it is little more than two months since we first started to discuss in this House the question of intervention. I remember that then I had to be very careful in talking about intervention. I remember the first speech I made at the end of October. At that time, I felt that the intervention of Italy was proved, but even then hon. Members in some parts of the House disputed it. I felt that it was proved that the Italian Government had intervened, but I did not consider that, on the information which I had, German intervention was proved. Intervention was then surreptitious and one had to be very careful about such allegations.
Now, two months later, Germany and Italy openly boast of the help which they are giving to the Spanish insurgents. They have sent out not only tanks and aeroplanes and munitions but also men—these totalitarian volunteers of whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) spoke in his last speech on this subject. Volunteers are going there too from France and Britain, and I see, according to this morning's "Times" that the number of volunteers fighting on the two sides is estimated at the colossal figure of between 70,000 and 80,000 men. It is an extraordinary fact and a feature of this civil war on which I commented in my first speech on the question—and what I said then has been borne out by subsequent happenings—that the will of the Spaniards themselves is for peace. They are not forming up and fighting en masse in their own war. There is no guerilla war, although that


kind of warfare was formerly regarded as characteristically Spanish, but as the "Times" correspondent in Madrid said the other day, as many foreigners as Spaniards have died in the defence of Madrid. The Spanish will, as I say, is for peace, and I believe that if the Spaniards were left alone they would find a way out. I agree with what the Secretary of State said the other day, that they would find a Spanish way out which would be neither Fascist nor Bolshevist. They would find a Spanish method of governing themselves.
Meanwhile, the Italians are in virtual occupation of Majorca and the Germans are penetrating into Spanish Morocco, Rio De Oro and the Canaries. The Leader of the Opposition asked for information, which I hope will be given, about the visit of one of His Majesty's ships to Morocco. British naval officers were asked to go there to find out whether it was true that German troops had been landed and aerodromes occupied by German airmen. The "Times" correspondent in Morocco says that they did not go to the Melilla aerodrome. He says he does not know whether that was because they refused to go there or because permission was withheld and the House would like to know from the Under-Secretary what explanation there is of the failure of these officers to visit the Melilla aerodrome.
The Secretary of State said that, taking the long view, intervention in Spain was not only bad humanity but bad politics, and he went on to say that Spain would react against foreign control, and, therefore, that in the long run we need not fear what the result of the war might be. Yes, "if we take the long view," and it is very important to take long views. At the same time we have also to take short views and we must not get our perspective wrong. We have to view the next four or five years. Does the Secretary of State say that it would not matter if a Government supported by German and Italian troops was in control in Spain during the next critical four or five years? I cannot believe that he holds that view and I shall be interested to hear whether the Under-Secretary is prepared to support it. I believe, and I am confident that the Secretary of State shares this belief, that a victory for General Franco with the support of German and Italian troops, and the occupation of parts of Spanish territory during the next three or four

years by German and Italian troops would be a grave weakening of the position of France and Britain in the Mediterranean and a real threat to European peace. It is time, therefore, it seems to me, that the Government heeded the warning of Signor Mussolini and stopped drifting like sand before the wind of Fascist violence and intrigue.
The Secretary of State referred to the Foreign Enlistment Act. I, of course, accept his statement. I have not the audacity of the Leader of the Opposition to challenge the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and I feel inclined to accept the statement of the Government that the Act applies to the present situation in Spain. But if so, action ought to have been taken long ago. Why did the Government wait? My hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), who has been out in Spain, says that 750 British volunteers are fighting in Spain now. Surely, the Government must have known months ago that these recruits were going to Spain. It was their duty to see that the law was administered. A week ago the Government seemed to be contemplating some bold and far-reaching policy. There were premonitory paragraphs in the newspapers. Active discussions about possible naval blockades were carried on in the newspapers, in London and Paris. A special Cabinet Committee was summoned. It seemed that the initiative was to be seized by France and Britain. It all petered out, however, in a request to the five other governments to agree to a date on which to stop sending volunteers and in this warning as to the Foreign Enlistment Act.
I do not know what larger policy the Government or at least the Foreign Office may have contemplated, but I would suggest a policy which might be undertaken in three stages. The first stage would be to co-operate with France in calling upon Germany, Russia, Italy, and Portugal to agree to an early date on which the dispatch of volunteers or troops to Spain or Spanish territories would stop. The next stage would be to name a date, not much more distant, on which the export of munitions of war to Spain would be effectively controlled. I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State say that the chairman of the Non-Intervention Committee had worked out a scheme which could be operated, even without the


approval either of the Spanish Government or the insurgents. I would like the Government to announce definitely that that scheme must in their view be approved at no distant date. I hope—I cannot say that I also believe, because my information is not sufficient to enable me to use so strong a word—that the foreign governments concerned will agree to that proposal. If indeed the Secretary of State can get agreement without going any further than that, no one would be more glad than I would be to avoid the perils of a naval blockade. But it is no good averting our gaze from the facts and from such reliable information as comes to our notice and I see in to-day's "Times" that the Berlin correspondent of that paper says that everything points to intervention continuing.
I would say, if prompt agreement cannot be reached on those lines, let the League of Nations be summoned. Let all the Powers who are prepared to put a stop to this illegal intervention in Spain against the authority of the constitutional government in Spain be invited to co-operate in exerting effective control, whatever the obstacles. I am inclined to believe, from a careful perusal of the French Note, that it is some such action as this that the French Government want the British Government to support. I see, in the last sentence of the French Note, these words:
If, therefore, after a reasonable lapse of time from the application of the restrictive measures"—
that is, the restrictive measures on the despatch of volunteers—
the impossibility of putting an effective plan of control into effect with general consent becomes apparent, the Government of the Republic must reserve its entire liberty of action, whether to denounce the agreement contracted or to organise, in spite of the difficulties encountered, the international co-operation which will allow of effective control.
It would be of some comfort to a good many of us if the Under-Secretary of State could use language of equal strength in replying to this Debate, if he could make it clear that the patience of the Government is not inexhaustible, that if the Italian and the German Governments refuse to co-operate on the lines which the Government have suggested to them in their recent Note, if they refuse to stop the despatch of volunteers, if they refuse to agree to a plan of effective control and

to stop the import of munitions to Spain, the Government will then be prepared, in co-operation with the French Government, to employ such measures as will bring intervention by foreign Powers in this deplorable and tragic Spanish struggle to an end promptly, and will convince Signor Mussolini that the great democracies are not drifting sands, but that there is a point at which they will make an effective stand for the principles in which they believe, principles which must be the foundation of a lasting peace.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: After the most eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party and after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I feel myself somewhat confused, both by the policies which they have advocated and by the criticisms which they have passed upon the Government. I cannot help recalling that when I saw General Franco a little time ago I made him one promise. I said that I would tell the truth about what I had seen and what I had heard in the part of the country which he ruled, and it is in that simpler sense that I hope to address myself to the House this evening. I want at the outset to say that there were certain phrases in, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which I could not help feeling were, if I may use a rude word, cant phrases. He said, "We recognise only one legitimate Government," "we expect the Spanish people to manage their own affairs," "we believe in democracy." In a sense I can agree with him in all those sentences. Certainly I believe in democracy just as strongly as he believes in it, but if I might in my turn pass one criticism on the Spanish Government, it would be this, that it has never been, in the British sense, a democratically elected Government. Some of the machine guns now being used in the defence of Madrid were employed during that election; not to fire, but they were there. Forty nuns in Malaga went to a polling station, and not a single vote for the Right issued out of that polling booth. That is a little example. These people who are following General Franco, whether you agree with them or not, are fighting for their principles and for what they believe.
When the Spanish Government was elected, it did not govern. In so far as it did govern, its government in its first principles was unfair. If, for example, a Government supporter was murdered and a criminal was arrested, he was sentenced to the maximum, life imprisonment, but if a supporter of the Opposition was murdered—and there were many political murders in Spain—and a man was arrested at all, he got a fortnight's imprisonment. Churches were being burned all over the country. Everybody knew that sooner or later there was going to be a revolution of the Left, and it was just a question of which revolution came first. To-day that Government is a mockery. It is not a Government any longer, and nobody on its own side pretends that it is. In the Basque country they have autonomy, and they are fighting for Basque independence. In Catalonia they again have autonomy, and there is hardly a Catalonian soldier defending Madrid at the present time, and certainly the writ of the Valencia Government does not run at all in Catalonia.
In Madrid what Government there is is carried on by a series of unions and party organisations. The P.O.U.M. — the workers' party of Marxist unification, the federation of Iberian Anarchists, the C.N.T., another anarchist body, the Syndicalists and the General Workers' Union. The flag of all these people is the red flag; their salute is the clenched fist. They do not pretend to be a democracy any longer at all. They pride themselves on being a Government of Communists and anarchists, and supposing that eventually a Government of the whole of Spain issued out of this, does anyone suppose there could be any coherent Government at all? As for the people who are most powerful on the Government side, undoubtedly the two most powerful individuals are the Russian Ambassador, Rosenberg, and the general at present in command of the Madrid defences, also, I believe, a Russian, though possibly a German Russian, called General Klebir.
Now if I may turn to General Franco's side, I have seen with my own eyes the religion to which I happen to belong being virtually destroyed. Everywhere where the Red forces have retreated, images have been rooted out of the churches, pictures have been slashed, or in some

cases removed, altars have been hacked down, organs have been removed, and even the churches themselves have been burned. In one church I saw that tombs had been desecrated. That is your Government. Then, there are the massacred priests. Out of 136 priests in Toledo, six are now alive; five escaped, and one hid. Toledo is, as it were, the Canterbury of Spain. They were, as it were, the Cathedral clergy, the minor canons, and so on. Will anybody pretend that many of these innocent old priests were, in fact, helping the enemy? Of course, some priests in some parts of Spain may have been shot, and perhaps rightly shot, for helping the enemy or for using their churches for observation purposes, but does anyone suppose that these old priests were murdered for helping the enemy? I have here a quotation from a speech that I read in yesterday's "Manchester Guardian":
Most of the Roman Catholic Churches have been burned down and priests and monks shot. There are a number of churches still left intact and they are being preserved by the Government, but there are no Roman Catholic services in the whole of Catalonian territory.
That is not, as one might think, a quotation from an ardent supporter of General Franco, but a quotation from a speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and it was quoted in a letter which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian." In coming to a conclusion about religion in Spain, I was perfectly prepared to take a charitable view of the Government, and I dm prepared to accept even the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara) that there is no fundamental anti-God feeling in Spain. I do not suppose that there was in Russia in 1917. There are, however, a sufficient number of people in Spain quite determined to present the Deity as a stumbling block to Communism and to progress and civilisation, to render the Catholic Church in Spain impossible of action either as an established church or, what I believe is much more important, as a tolerated dis-established church, and to prevent the children of Spain being educated in the beliefs of that Church with the approval of any Left Government that is likely to rule in Spain for some years to come.
I will turn from that subject to say only a word about atrocities, because I


believe that both sides have been guilty in the past. Civil war is inexorable. There is such irrevocable cruelty. When brother fights brother it is much more bitter than when one country fights another and probably fraternises at Christmas time. All the independent evidence I got was that the great preponderance of cruelty and bestial cruelty was with the Government. I will compare what has happened in Badajoz with what is happening in Madrid. This is, I believe, the true story of Badajoz and it was confirmed for me by the "Times" correspondent in that area. To Badajoz the army of General Franco advanced some 30 miles. It captured a number of villages and in every village found 20 or 100 or 150 bodies of people who were supposed to have sympathised with the Right. The perpetrators of those massacres were caught in Badajoz itself, and another ghastly massacre followed. In Madrid, on the other hand, night after night people are brought—it may be 50 or 100—out of the prisons by Anarchists and shot in cold blood. It may be that they had been tried, and it may be that they had not. It was like the French Revolution in its worst days. We have that on the evidence of some of those hon. Members who have been to Madrid. If I had to choose between the guilt of those two massacres, I should unhesitatingly say that what is going on in Madrid is the worst of all.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that the Members who visited Madrid testified that the present junta in control and the Government at Valencia were doing their utmost to prevent such atrocities, whereas the massacre at Badajoz were the direct orders of the Burgos Government, and that orders to commit similar atrocities are shouted night after night from the Seville radio?

Mr. Crossley: The first part of the hon. Lady's question shows what an extraordinarily ineffective Government it is in Spain. I have tried to show that there were a number of massacres in a whole series of villages by the Government and I believe that it is totally untrue to say that there is any incitement to murder on the Seville radio. If there is ever to be any possibility of mediation, it would be a step forward, I believe, if the great countries of the world could join together

to prevent the Spanish forces on both sides killing their prisoners. I have no evidence, but I have no doubt, that the forces of General Franco kill a large proportion of their prisoners. It is true that these Reds belong to organisations which are shooting White hostages in Madrid. Certainly the Madrid forces kill the great bulk of their prisoners. The killing of prisoners in war is in itself a bestial business. If the great nations of the world could only agree on that score and make representations to both sides, at least one great good will have come out of the efforts of this country.
With regard to the question of foreign intervention, we have had it all on one side from the two right hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party talked about Germans, Italians and so on. At the time I was in Spain there were undoubtedly a very large number of foreigners in the lines in the defence of Madrid. I would not dare to say what the numbers were, not having been on that side. On General Franco's side there had been at that time no foreign soldiers serving, apart from a few pilots of aeroplanes. I was in Toledo for two days and saw two German civilians. There were plenty of German civilians and soldiers in Salamanca. We walked behind a considerable proportion of the front line, and we saw troops in every colour of uniform, but we did not see German troops. We saw any amount of German munitions, tanks and aeroplanes, but no German troops. We had that absolutely borne out by the correspondents of the respective newspapers at the time. They said that there were German troops going into Seville. There were at that time probably about 10,000 Germans in Seville and Cadiz alone. There were not at that time any German troops serving on the Madrid front, and I do not believe that any German troops have as yet appeared on that front. Nor, I think, were there any Italians either. Italians have landed since then. On the Government side there were people of every country in the world fighting—Englishmen, Poles, Mexicans, French—very large numbers of Frenchmen—a few Germans and a largish number of Russians. In one action over too Russians were killed. That was in the capture of Bobadilla.

Mr. Gallacher: Did you see it?

Mr. Crossley: Various correspondents saw them. [Interruption.] I believe that I am entitled to take the evidence of British newspaper correspondents as that of fairly accurate, impartial people. They are sent there by their newspapers, whatever their political views are, to ascertain what is going on. Some of them have the political views of the Left. They were observers, and they were independent observers, and we had to take what evidence we could on that score, just the same as the hon. Members who went to Madrid also relied for a good deal of their evidence on newspaper correspondents.

Mr. D. Grenfell: They did not.

Mr. Crossley: Well, a few of them did. I am usually willing to take the evidence of the "Times" correspondent in most places. I should think he would be a person likely to be an impartial observer. As to munitions of war, I do not know which country is most guilty of sending them. On both sides there are large quantities of munitions. Almost all the rifle ammunition being used on the Government side comes from France. I saw barrels of it, and more than three-quarters of it was French; there was some Mexican and some Polish and a little Russian. There were Russian tanks, and also Russian bombing aeroplanes, which were extremely good and which bombed civilian towns every night. There are Russian fighting aeroplanes. They are fast but not so good. On General Franco's side there are an extremely large number of very good Italian fighting aeroplanes, some very slow German bombers—surprisingly slow, much slower, I am sure, than their best bombers. From the very beginning of the war France has undoubtedly been sending large quantities of war material over the French border. After all the evidence I heard there was, to my mind, no doubt that from the first day up to this France—perhaps she regrets it to-day—has been sending war material into Spain. On the other side, Italy was next, Germany was next after her and Russia was last, but is now providing war material on a very large scale indeed. On the Government side there is a certain type of Czechoslovakian rifle that is regarded by anybody who can get hold of one as the most perfect rifle ever handled.
If I may detain the House for just three minutes more I would like to answer

one question which has often been put to me, Is the country behind General Franco and is he employing Spanish troops? He has a few Moors left, not very many. He has his foreign legion, probably about 40,000 strong, of whom up to 90 per cent. are Spanish troops. It is open for any foreigners who care to enlist, but as regards 90 per cent. they are Spanish long-service troops. He has something like 150,000 Requété troops, sometimes called wrongly Carlists—extremely good material. He could multiply that number, I believe, at any time by three if he could arm them and train them. To do him justice—and I want the House to do him justice—he does try to carry on life behind the lines in a perfectly normal civil way. Factories are working, agriculture is going on and there is no curfew. It is all perfectly peaceful, orderly and quiet behind his lines. Up to now he has, I suppose, called up something like 150,000 of these Requétés who voluntarily join the organisation, in which they are at any time liable for service. Then he has very large numbers of Fascists who are, if I may express the opinion, altogether a meaner type of troops—nothing like such good material as the so-called Carlists or Requété troops.
I was allowed to go about everywhere quite unattended, to go into any cafe and so on, and the impression I got was that General Franco quite definitely did have behind him that part of Spain which I saw. I was in a great many of the big towns, though I was not in the South. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford (Mr. H. Mitchell) was in the South, and perhaps he will testify about conditions there; but wherever I was I could wander about the towns. You can make a man decorate himself with a little Spanish flag for the sake of protection, but you cannot make people come out for fiestas and on Sundays and make them and all the children display the enthusiasm—the genuine enthusiasm—for a cause such as these people displayed unless they are behind the man who is governing that part of their country. I was quite convinced that General Franco's Spain was in fact behind him, and that those people who are counting on the break up of his rule are living in a false paradise.
May I, in conclusion, make one remark on the foreign politics of this situation?


Of course Germany wants to get something out of her intervention. What is it? I do not believe for a moment that it is territory she wants. Spain is one of the great sources of raw materials in the world. In addition to that she is so placed geographically as to be in an extremely useful position to provide re-fuelling stations for the German Navy. In addition to that there is always the possibility of an alliance. I wholly endorse, if I may so dare, the words the Foreign Secretary used; General Franco is not going to tolerate foreign influence in Spain after this war is over. The longer it goes on the more that influence is likely to be, but if there is an independently-minded race in the world it is the Spanish race. What General Franco will want after this war is over—and I do not mind saying so now—is help and friendship, perhaps financial help, in the humane task of the reconstruction of his country. And it will be a humane task; and if it is not, humane conditions may be attached to the granting of help by a country like our own country, an independent country which cannot be accused of having any ulterior motives inside his dominion. That is what General Franco will want after the war, when he has finally won this war. I am quite convinced that he will win it. I have got the definite impression that in the end he will be bound to win this war; but it will take a very long time. After all, he does not want to encircle Madrid. It would cost the life of every one of his supporters inside the city if he were to encircle it.

Mr. Thurtle: He has killed women and children, anyhow.

Mr. Crossley: Well, probably not more than the other side in their bombing operations against civilian towns. I was in one bombing raid, and I must say that I did not know it until it was all over.
At the same time, even if it would be expedient, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition put it, in the next four years for this country to have a Spain at one end of the Mediterranean composed of a series of small, Red, perhaps quarrelling, essentially weak Governments, rather than a military dictatorship, I do not see how any lasting

foreign policy, any honourable lasting foreign policy, for this Government, can ever be founded upon expediency like that. There are certain first principles. I do not believe that there is any more Democracy in Communism than there is Democracy in Fascism. There is no Democracy in either, but I do definitely believe at this moment that the Spanish people would be better cared for by General Franco than they would be by the series of Soviets and little Red Governments which now rule in different parts on the other side of Spain. When we continue our efforts to achieve nonintervention, let us carry them out to the end. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has entirely avoided the temptation, which seems to be such an easy one to slide into, and yet such a wrong one, of being unfair and rude to people who are fighting for what they believe to be their country, their church and everything that they hold sacred. I grant both sides their bona fides, and I ask hon. Members opposite only that they should do the same.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I do not want to deal in detail with the speech which the hon. Member has just made, but obviously that speech ought to be answered by some other hon. Member who has had an opportunity of visiting Spain. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is unable to be here to-night and to follow immediately the hon. Member. I am sure he would deal with that speech in a trenchant and effective fashion. I have had a very detailed account from my hon. Friend of his experiences in Spain, and it is extraordinary that two hon. Members, both of a fair standard of intelligence, should return from the same country with such diametrically opposite impressions. The hon. Member made one or two points just now which I wish to take up at once. His description of the Catalonian Government was so grotesque and unlike the reality that I am inclined to be sceptical of his other descriptions of things in Spain. I want to mention one organisation which he says is playing a prominent part in Catalonian Government, namely, the P.O.U.M.

Mr. Crossley: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the impression I gave. That is the Government which is now in


Madrid. I did not mention it in connection with Catalonia at all.

Mr. Maxton: That organisation is one of the elements in Spanish politics that I know something about. Its position is not that of a trade union at all. It is a political party, of the same viewpoint as my own party in this country, and it is not a part of the Catalonian or of the Madrid Government any more than we should be part of a Government in this country. That is one point. The second is that the hon. Member told some story about the objection to the Government in Spain, which was elected at the General Election, being that it did not govern, and that was why General Franco and the others had to take steps to remove it by unconstitutional methods. That is not the only Government in the world which has failed to govern after it was elected. The hon. Member cast doubts upon the fairness of the electoral methods which returned that Government to power, and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) hear, hear'd him at that. It was suggested that there was something unfair—

Sir H. Croft: I never would like to suggest that there was anything unfair, although it is clear that the Government was not actually returned by a majority vote.

Mr. Maxton: I do not know, but there is, to me, something unfair in the presentation of the statistics. All the figures which I have seen give the Spanish Government, as elected at the last general election in Spain, a clear majority of the electorate in Spain. The suggestion was that the electorate was terrorised in going to the poll, and that it was a Red Government which was in control at the election. It was, in fact, a Government of the Right. The hon. Gentleman talked about machine guns in the hands of the Opposition of the Left being displayed upon the public squares when the Government of the Right was in control. Surely the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, who sits in such close proximity to me—[An HON. MEMBER: On the left."]—yes, on my left—would think there was something very weak if I came into the House, after a General Election in which his Government had been in control, and said that they did not get fair play to cast their votes freely as they desired. That is the position. It

has been claimed that a government of the Right in Spain will be a strong government and the kind of government that Spain needs. The hon. Gentleman talked of the humane things that General Franco would do if he only got into power; Franco and his kind have been in power in Spain for hundreds of years. His backers have owned the soil of Spain for hundreds of years, and the people of Spain, particularly the peasantry, have been down into depths of poverty unparalleled in any other country in Europe. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Russia?"]—I am not specially the spokesman for Russia in this House, but it is true that the condition of the Spanish peasantry under governments of the Right was as low, and is as low, as the condition of the peasantry in Russia under Tsarist governments. It is also true that under governments of the Left in Russia there has been a steady rise in the standard of life of the Russian people so that their conditions compare favourably with the conditions in the best countries of the world. That is unarguable and undeniable.

Mr. Wragg: That is not borne out by the statistics given by the International Labour Office.

Mr. Maxton: I am perfectly certain that the statistics of the International Labour Office bear out the fact that the condition of the Russian workers has advanced during these recent years at a speed and a rate unparalleled in any other country of the world. But that, after all, tempting as it is, is not the subject of the Debate to-night. If Governments of the Right in Spain had had the desire or intention to bring a new era of peace, security and comfort to the people of Spain they have had hundreds of years to do it, and they have not done it. I want to turn to the speech of the Foreign Secretary. His conception of the foreign policy of Great Britain in this particular situation is based on his reading of the psychology of the Spanish people and he says that the proud Spanish people after this is over will turn to the people who have not interfered with them rather than to those who have given assistance to one side or the other. Again, the hon. Member who spoke last also made the point that the Spanish people would not tolerate any foreigner on their soil holding strategic positions or inter-


fering with the country. But they do not realise that the proud Spanish people have tolerated Gibraltar. They have had to tolerate that just as they would have to tolerate foreign interference or the occupation of the Balearic Islands. If one or other of the Fascist States gets a footing all the pride of the Spanish people will not be able to dislodge them. When the Foreign Secretary bases Britain's attitude to this dispute on his knowledge of the psychology of the Spanish people, he is basing it on something that has not been proved in the past to be sufficient to prevent foreigners having some say in the disposition and direction of Spanish affairs or the holding of particular bases in Spain.
I want to turn to the question of the policy of the Government on volunteers going to Spain, in which I am particularly and specially interested. I disagreed when the British Government took the line that the Spanish Government should not have all the rights in their difficulties which any normal government would have. I have said repeatedly—I say it again—that the fact that the Spanish Government was not treated as other Governments would have been treated was due entirely to the class prejudice of the Government that presently ruled in this country. If there had been a Government of the Right in Spain it would have been accorded all the rights normally accorded to Governments, including the right to purchase arms, to import what goods they required for the prosecution of the war in the ships of the various countries, including this country. It was to discriminate against the Spanish people's Government that the Government said there should be non-intervention. To say that the Spanish Government should not be allowed to buy arms, to say that British ships would not be allowed to be used for the importation of particular things into Spain, were acts of discrimination against the Spanish people's Government which had no precedent whatever in previous British practice and were dictated on this occasion, not because the British Government was so anxious to keep absolutely free from association, but because its prejudices were against the Spanish Government rather than with that Government. There was left the one little bit of assistance

that was going from this country to Spain, an assistance which was going freely. Young men in this country were offering themselves to go and fight in the Spanish forces, and again the Government in my view—and I am not so modest as the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A Sinclair), who does not dare to challenge the word of a Foreign Secretary when it is backed up by the Attorney-General—

Sir A. Sinclair: Who does not challenge the opinion of a Law Officer of the Crown on a point of law.

Mr. Maxton: He knows—and I know—he has been in the House when he has seen two Attorney-Generals, one of them broken and the other transferred to other spheres of influence, which is a nice way of doing the same thing, who were both put into their difficulties because they gave a reading of the law or judicial procedure which the Law Courts subsequently would not accept. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. When I came into the House first, young, innocent, I would have taken the same view as the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. Sinclair: But even with the added experience which the hon. Member has since gained I rather doubt his great capacity in exposing any fallacies of which the Attorney-General may be guilty.

Mr. Maxton: I do not imagine that the present occupant of the post is any more infallible than his predecessors. He and I have one thing in common. I do not know whether I should mention it, but he and I have both been convicted in this land for the same offence, the same breach of the law, exceeding the speed limit; and if the right hon. Gentleman is capable of breaking the law on a matter which affects himself, or misinterpreting it—because I am quite sure that he did not break it deliberately—then he is capable of making a mistake in the reading of the law. I, personally, have had what I have never had before in my experience of this House—a substantial number of letters from persons engaged in the legal profession pointing out to me in plain, simple language how the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, cannot possibly apply to the existing situation. On a plain reading of the terms of the


clauses I could not see how they applied to the situation, and I only wish that I and my party were in the financial position to challenge a test case on this matter in the courts of law. I cannot believe that the highest courts in the land would support the Government in the action they are now taking. I would ask the Attorney-General to have another look at it, and to remember that the Cabinet, on the precedents set by previous Cabinets, while they are glad to have his legal opinions when they run their way, will throw him overboard in two minutes if the Law Courts do not uphold the opinions that he gives. That has happened twice in the last 10 years, and it can happen again. Therefore, I would ask him to have another look at it, and, if necessary, to call in somebody else who can look at this Government in a more detached and more realistic way than he possibly can, living among them as he does every day.
To me, however, these are relatively minor matters. I agree with what is the avowed intention of the Foreign Secretary and the policy of Great Britain—to try to bring this terrible struggle to an end at the earliest possible moment. I agree with what the Foreign Secretary said is their intention, namely, to minimise the amount of suffering and death that is involved. These are good objectives, which everyone in the House will be ready to share. But we cannot agree that the experience of the last five months has shown that the policy of the British Government is the effective, practical way of achieving these desirable ends. We believe that the shilly-shallying, the vagueness, which the Government have shown during these months, has prolonged and intensified the struggle, and has encouraged the interventions of other people in the belief that they could go gaily into this contest largely in the spirit of military experiment, to see how their military machine will work. It has encouraged them to go in, believing that they had nobody to meet but an enfeebled Spanish Government, without even the diplomatic support of the great nations like Great Britain and others throughout Europe. That prolonged the struggle. It created the impression that the Spanish Government forces were isolated and without help, and that the Franco forces had powerful friends outside the borders of Spain. Obviously, the

experience of these months shows that, without the external support he has had, Franco would have been swept back into the sea with his Moorish army. That is obvious to anyone who reads the intelligence impartially, and Great Britain must take the responsibility for not having, at the earliest stage of these hostilities, offered to the Spanish Government the rights that any properly constituted Government has.
I believe that in the beginning Great Britain made a vital error, and that every step the Foreign Secretary has taken since has added to the gravity of the error; and I believe he is going away to Geneva to-night to increase that error. He seems to think that if Great Britain takes up an attitude of vague friendship to all nations in the world, some day all the nations will gather round and say, "Good old Great Britain; we are all going to be friends with you and be one happy family, with Anthony Eden as our great benevolent power that made us love one another." That, as far as I can understand, is the possibility that he sees in his mind—that some day our attitude of never taking a side, of never standing up for a friend, will be recognised as being evidence of our great superior wisdom in international affairs. I believe that nothing of the kind will be the case.
What the nations of the world are being told to-day, and what the Spanish Government is being told, is that Great Britain will never take sides in any dispute, will never raise a finger in any serious way, unless Great Britain herself is going to make some substantial gain. People may be slaughtered, people may be brutalised, people may be driven into the deepest degradation of poverty, but it is of no interest to Great Britain as long as her own power and prestige remain untouched; and that has now reached a point at which Great Britain's power and prestige have dropped to a lower ebb than has ever been the case before. One of the charges made by Mussolini is that the right hon. Gentleman's policies are like a shifting sand, and that is a charge against democracy. It is no crime or fault in political activity for a nation to change its ground if the ground that it is occupying has become untenable. It has been completely demonstrated that the ground that Great Britain has


occupied during these months on the Spanish issue, in the light of the attitude of Germany, in the light of the attitude of Italy, in the light of subsequent happenings, has become untenable, and that a new ground of genuinely standing up for the Government of Spain is the only possible ground that this nation can genuinely occupy.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) had returned from Spain with diametrically opposed views. He seemed rather surprised at that, but it is probably to some extent due to the fact that they visited different sides in Spain. I must say that I find myself in disagreement with the Leader of the Opposition when he complained that the Foreign Secretary admitted that there were two governments in existence in Spain at the present time.
My reason for intervening for a few moments in the Debate is that recently I had the opportunity of visiting a large area of that part of Spain which is now occupied by General Franco. During that time I travelled some 2,000 miles, visiting, part of the time with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford, nearly all the principal towns in General Franco's part of Spain. I think that one thing the House should know is that in that part of Spain the people, so far as an observer can judge, are behind General Franco. It is a complete misconception to think that he simply represents the Army, and that the population is only waiting to rise against him. I think that rightly or wrongly, he has a very large body of opinion behind him, and is in a position to get a very large number of recruits. Obviously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford has explained, these recruits have to be trained, and that work is in progress. Anyone who merely thinks of this war, so far as General Franco is concerned, as being a rebellion of the Army, is making a grave mistake, for I believe that General Franco has an immense section of the population of the country behind him.
I think, also, that we ought to recognise that in this territory to-day there is absolute law and order. During the whole time that I was visiting these different towns and villages, one was able to go about perfectly freely as one liked, and absolute law and order prevailed. A few minutes ago we heard a discussion as to the relative amount of progress that has been made as regards the workers in Russia and in Spain. I have visited both countries recently and, in so far as the elementary question of food is concerned, I certainly saw far more evidence of plentiful food supplies in Spain to-day than in Russia not so very long ago.
On this question of intervention, it is, surely, by now perfectly obvious that intervention on both sides is taking place on a very large scale. It is useless for some people to blame Germany and Italy, and others entirely to blame Russia and France. Unfortunately the Spanish war is being prolonged by foreign countries. I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bridgeton complain that the British Government was not helping the Valencia Government to buy arms. I always thought that the party opposite were against the export trade in arms. I have heard it called "traffic in death" and things like that. I was surprised to hear him advocate that we should export arms to Spain. Having recently seen the effect of some of these foreign arms makes me feel still more strongly that it would not be a wise policy for us to allow arms to be shipped to Spain. I have seen towns being bombed by these very arms which it is suggested that we should send out and I have seen the results of the destruction caused by them, and it all makes one feel that the Government are absolutely right in doing all they can to stop the appalling effects of foreign arms being introduced into Spain.
We have heard a great deal about the so-called elections. I had the opportunity of talking to many people on the subject of the last election there. It may be said that Spaniards would probably be prejudiced, so I particularly asked British residents how the last election was conducted. I remember one who had lived all his life in an important Spanish city describing how it took place. He went to a polling booth with an old friend


who wished to vote and, as soon as he got in, objections were made that his friend's papers were not in order. When the latter protested, the agent of the party of the Left in the polling booth made it plain that he was armed. The would-be voter recognised that discretion was the better part of valour and did not vote. I was told that that happened on a large scale. If I were allowed to employ those methods I believe I might stand for Bridgeton with a sporting chance of being elected. I deplore revolution of all kinds, but it is most unwise to urge intervention on the part of the British Government. After all, if we are going to supply arms to the Spanish Government just because it is the Spanish Government, supposing by some chance a revolution broke out in Italy or Germany, is it to be urged that we should supply munitions to the Fascist or to the Hitler Government? If we did, I am sure the hon. Member opposite would be the first person to rise in his place and protest. We should do all we can to preserve our present efforts for neutrality and still further try to close the frontiers to arms going in. Anything that could be done to localise the trouble and confine it to Spain and remove some of the foreigners at present fighting there must tend to shorten the struggle and prevent it extending to other European countries.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Logan: In what I am going to say I do not pretend to be voicing the orthodox opinion of the Labour party or to be speaking on its behalf, but as a member of the Labour party and a Catholic associated and entitled to be in the Labour movement speaking my mind on the subject. It should be made plain to those who read history that they are getting real facts and not what some would-be historians would say are the facts of the case. History is composed of all kinds of statements. We are living in an age when a visit of a day or two to a particular country seems to make people believe that they have a knowledge of everything that happens there. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that, if his hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) had been there to-night, he would have been able to give first-hand information in regard to the atrocities that are going on. I was asked to go

out, but I refused because I felt that the difficulty not only of the Government but of the Labour party in regard to the position was so critical that it was far better that no garbled account should come to the House of Commons in regard to the difficulties that beset our Government and our own people. I am not one of those who are not anxious to fight. I am always anxious to fight. I have never been a pacifist, but I cannot understand the anomaly of those who have been in prison as pacifists being so anxious in the cause of liberty to go out now and fight. These are anomalies which do not appear right to the logical mind.

Mr. Maxton: Is the hon. Member referring to me?

Mr. Logan: I was not referring to the hon. Member, though I should not be afraid, with all his majesty, of mentioning even his name if I had to deal with a particular Member.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member has no reason whatever to be afraid of me in any matter, but I have always resented the suggestion that I have been in prison as a pacifist.

Mr. Logan: I do not wish to rob the hon. Member of what he takes unto himself, but what I am arguing is the right of a Member not to sit silently and allow any statement to be made which must go out to the public as being the voice of the British House of Commons. I owe no allegiance to the Tory party or to the National Government, but I owe allegiance to truth, to whatever party I may belong in this House. Public opinion can only be influenced and built up on the true situation presented to the people.
What is the situation that I am asked to face to-night? I come from a well-known division of Liverpool honestly to support my party in regard to the economic position of the day, to defeat whatever Government it may be considered necessary to defeat, and to see that our people get the best possible treatment in this world of ours. I do not fail to understand from that position that I am also a Britisher, and that any liberty and rights we may gain on the Floor of the British House of Commons will certainly benefit the people I represent. When the day of power comes to


this party, as it must, we shall require all the stability that lies behind the power of the British Government in the initiation of the policy we may wish to advocate. It has been mentioned to-night that we have been apathetic and that we should have more force. What does that mean? If I understand the English language correctly, it means that, if you want to compel a dictator to listen to your voice, you have to go to war. There is no other way in which to do it. I understand only one way. Get the blow in first and knock the man down, and knock him up afterwards. That is the successful way. It is said that when you want to get rid of an opponent, whether in the ring or in political life, you should knock him out and talk to him afterwards when he gets sense.
What have we been told to-night? We have been told that the Foreign Secretary is going everywhere as an English ambassador. I take it—and I hope that I am right—that he is going everywhere as an ambassador not on behalf of a section of the people, but as the representative of Great Britain, voicing the opinion of Great Britain, which ought, in the ordinary ways of life, to lead in the van of progress among the nations of the world. I am not a Little Englander, but believe that there is a great and mighty power, if Ministers would use it, a compelling force to bring about unity in the disruptive forces to-day. The position in this House to-night is that the Minister has made a speech, some points of which are not satisfactory, but when all is said and done, he is going on a delicate mission. He is going as an ambassador to try and reconcile, if that be possible, the conflicts of all the Fascist elements of the world. Great Britain is supposed to be able to keep an even keel and to bring liberty and prestige to the British nation, which many statesmen in the past have failed to achieve.
We are told that non-intervention is fatal and that we should have intervention. Where are we getting? Surely, if there is any place in this land where language ought to have its true value and the meaning of words ought to be definitely understood, it is the British House of Commons. What is it we are presenting to the people outside? You cannot have mock heroics in the House of Commons or play to the hustings. I am prepared

to go the whole hog in anything I advocate. The rank and file have understood where they were going and I hope that they will understand and get rid of the National Government as soon as possible, but that is no reason why, speaking deliberately and voicing the opinion of at least 90 per cent. of my co-religionists in Great Britain upon this important question, I should not say what I think is the right and proper thing to do.
I believe that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston had been here he would have been able to put what in his opinion was an honest and sincere point of view. I am fortified with an opposite point of view. I have it from a Spanish authority which is indisputable that the outrages which have happened in Spain are scandalous. I am not concerned with Franco bringing Moroccan troops to fight his own natives. It is scandalous, but it is six of one and half a dozen of the other and is a matter that must be weighed and balanced by the British Government before they even listen to the hon. Member for one of the Scottish Divisions or to the fanaticism or wisdom and logic of another hon. Member who has spoken previously. We have too many well-meaning quidnuncs in this House. I would ask the Minister whether he or any other Member of this House thinks that it is a civilised state of society in any land when 50 or 60 nuns can be killed, and ten bishops, who had no fight in them except to fight for the Vatican, which, of course, is abhorent these days, or some monk saying a paternoster that they had to be wiped out in the wonderful cause of freedom.

Mr. Gallacher: Nonsense.

Mr. Logan: What is the use of talking to me in the House of Commons of the purity of the Communist party. I am dealing with the position that faces the British Government. There are plain simple questions before us, whether we shall fight or whether we shall abstain, whether we shall be peace-makers, ruling our own Empire and looking after the prosperity of our own peoples, or whether we shall poke our nose into every corner of the world, where we have a right to expect to be snubbed if the nationals think fit. We hear much talk about the Mediterranean and a course to the East, and about British gunboats to shoot and


blow everybody up. Surely we had enough blowing up in the late War. I want to see no more wars. I want more sanity.
Let us have a regime of peace in 1937, and let us, instead of talking so much about the other nations of the world and their liberty, look a little more to our own land, and make Britain a worthy place for Britons to live in. The Government have a great task before them and, although they have many blemishes, they certainly have a right to call for support and co-operation for world peace. I do not give bouquets. I am speaking with a full knowledge that my words will be resented in many quarters, but I am convinced in my soul of souls that it is necessary that the British House of Commons shall not only be a place where speeches are made to be reported in the Press but a place where sometimes the truth is told on national problems.

10.7 p.m.

Sir H. Croft: I think I may say on behalf of other hon. Members as well as myself that we recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not, however, wish to deal with the religious issue, except to say, as one who is fundamentally divided from the hon. Member in regard to his religious opinions, that I believe the vast number of those who call themselves Christians deplore the most frightful happenings in Spain, and we offer to the hon. Member and those who think with him our deepest sympathy in the atrocities which have taken place.

Mr. Cocks: What about the atrocities of Franco?

Sir H. Croft: I was speaking purely on the subject of religion. I did not know that there was any question of the slaughter of religious people by General Franco. If there has been any such slaughter, it is equally disgraceful, and it is for the civilised nations to state their views on the subject if this world is not to be reduced to an absolute jungle.
May I say a few words in regard to what was said by the hon. Member about Moorish troops? There have been from the benches above the Gangway several references to Moorish troops. We need to be a little careful of what we say on that subject, especially in these days when we are taught that the colour bar no

longer exists. We were told that right through the long Debates on the Government of India Bill. We were told that the people of India must not be treated differently from the white peoples. We must also remember that we have used Indian soldiers in our wars in days gone by. More especially must we remember that a very large part of the Spanish army was disbanded and that the trained forces eligible to General Franco were very largely in Morocco. We must remember also that there are many Spaniards who deeply resent the idea that the Moroccans should be spoken of as if they were something quite different from the Spanish population. Let it not be forgotten that the occupation of such a large part of Spain by the Moors in days gone by was so marked that there are very large numbers of people in Spain to-day who are largely of Moroccan origin. Let us face these facts and not throw insults at the Spanish people on that account.
The Leader of the Opposition rather invited me to take part in the Debate by chiding me for not urging His Majesty's Government to take a stronger Imperial view in regard to the situation in Spain. From the start of this question, as one who is concerned with the fortunes of the British Empire, I have tried to keep in the closest contact with the position in the Mediterranean. I have had the privilege of meeting very large numbers of people from Spain who hold different views, and I have collected all the evidence that I could. I should like to tell the Leader of the Opposition that in regard to the British Empire I am convinced that he is not serving the purpose of the statesman of the self-governing Dominions if he is endeavouring to persuade His Majesty's Government to get embroiled in this affair, which has nothing directly to do with the British Empire. I am absolutely convinced that the policy which the Government have been adopting is one most conducive to preserving the peace of the world.
We ought to get rid of the idea, which we hear expressed so frequently in various quarters, that we are presenting to the world the spectacle of thanking God that we are not quite as other people are. Whenever international questions arise, we should make it quite clear that by any advice and counsel we can give


we are only too glad to help other nations to get over the difficulties which confront them, if they choose to take our advice, but that we are not going to butt in unless we find that the position of quarters of the earth for which we are responsible is in any way threatened. Not until then, or in keeping with any definite international obligation, are we prepared to be embroiled.
The Leader of the Opposition also insisted that the farce of non-intervention should be ended. Let us understand what that statement means. It means that he is insisting that we should intervene. If he is doing that, where comes all the story of his party for the past 10 or 15 years? Again and again through the years we have listened to impassioned speeches saying that Britain should do everything possible to keep out of war, that we should not allow munitions to go anywhere, that we should not allow our industries in this country to produce weapons for the slaughter of people, in other countries, and now that party are saying "intervene."

Mr. Gallacher: Nobody has said that.

Sir H. Croft: In spite of the intervention of the hon. Member I assert that the Leader of the Opposition made that statement earlier in the Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: He is not for intervention.

Sir H. Croft: The right hon. Gentleman's exact words were "Let us end the farce of non-intervention."

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Gallacher rose—

Sir H. Croft: I will not give way. The hon. Member must not think that he is going to dominate and tyrannise this House. The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues are able to defend him without the assistance of the hon. Member who is now posing as the champion of those whom he deserted during the week-end. In urging hon. Members to support the Government in keeping out of this affair as far as we can and to restrict and localise its effects, I think we should consider the order of events. Until recently we have heard a very eloquent story almost entirely from one side, and many of us have kept quiet because we do not want to add to the difficulties of the

Government and the country in their efforts to try to confine the conflagration. But I feel it is time we should recognise the fact—the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is a very pleasant companion, will, I know, not agree with me—that although as a result of the General Election the Government was the duly constituted Government, undoubtedly, of the country, yet it so happened that it was returned by a minority vote. That might happen in this country. My contention is that the voting was so close that it did not justify a complete revolution of ideas in that country.
From the moment the election took place terrorism began. I was informed at the time by numerous friends of mine in business in Spain, Englishmen, that churches were being destroyed, that law and order were no longer running, and that people with any form of property were being absolutely terrorised, with the Government taking no steps whatever to protect them. For some mysterious reason the British Broadcasting Corporation did not announce to this country that thousands of people were fleeing from Spain. At Gibraltar by the end of March there was not a single room in any hotel to be had because of the thousands of refugees who were leaving the country. It was only a question of weeks before the Communists were going to make a coup d'état in Spain.

Mr. Gallacher: Nonsense.

Sir H. Croft: At that time 77 trained terrorists had just arrived in the country from Moscow, and when the murder of Signor Calvo Sotelo took place General Franco—who can blame him?—said it was quite clear that the lives of eminent citizens in Spain were no longer safe and that if they were to save anything they must revolt. And the revolution was brought about. What happened then? Civil war took place. General Franco was sweeping everything before him, that cannot be denied, until he was checked at Madrid, a very difficult proposition unless he was prepared to destroy the place, which he did not want to do. [Interruption.] If what I am saying is not a correct description of the situation then we shall have to revise our ideas about the power of air destruction. We shall be able to throw out our chests a little


and say that we need not be afraid of this country being wiped out in two or three hours—a view, I may say, which I do not share. I am merely stating the facts, because I want the House to be properly informed. Franco's advance had succeeded all the time, but he was suddenly brought up against a well-armed and well-defended Madrid. Everybody knows that while in this House we were saying that there was to be no intervention, and a Non-Intervention Committee was being set up, a stream of armaments was going into Spain from other countries. One does not want to mention these facts, but how are we to get understanding in the world if we are not honest? If we are honest brokers, let us state the real facts.
It is a fact that train-loads of arms were pouring across the French frontier to Spain night after night and week after week. It is true that there was no law against it, and no non-intervention committee had been set up. It is also a fact—and we all deplore it—that forces of Germans and Italians are going into Spain. It is wicked to send young Englishmen there to die—it is wicked for any country to allow people to go to Spain to take part in a quarrel which has nothing to do with them. But let us be absolutely frank—there was a very large number of French defending Madrid. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Russians!"] Not so many Russians, perhaps a thousand. I am sorry to say there were about 250 Englishmen sent there by misguided people, who encouraged them to go. They were sent there by men who all their lives have been telling us in this country that whatever we do we must disarm and that there must be no defence of our own country. Those are the men who sent those poor deluded lads to fight in Spain. A few days ago I saw in a newspaper a photograph of a group of those young men, and I confess that I felt very sad that they had been encouraged to take that action. When I took out a big magnifying glass and examined their faces, I came to the conclusion that they were not quite as British as they were supposed to be. The fact remains, however, that they were encouraged to go.
Therefore, let us admit that there were very large international forces on the side of the Madrid Government before the forces from Italy and Germany arrived

in Spain. That cannot be denied. I have met people who have just returned from Spain and who have met those in a position to be able to quote numbers going in. I venture to think that when the history of this war is written, probably it will be found that there were something like 11,000 Frenchmen. in Spain—let me make it clear that neither they nor the munitions were there at the instance of their Government—before any recognised force of Germans or Italians went there. All these actions may be equally wrong, but if we are to tell the world what we think ought to be done, let us, at least, he honest in this Spanish affair.
I believe the Government would make the greatest blunder if they were to depart from the policy which they have so clearly set before the country and which they have done so much to maintain. Nothing would be better than an immediate stoppage of armaments and men of all exterior nationalities going to Spain; and more important than that, if it were possible to devise measures, difficult though they might be, would be to see that all foreign nationals who are at the present moment slaughtering Spaniards, although they have no part in the quarrel on one side or the other, are restored to their own countries by their Governments. I, for one, am rejoiced to see that certain of the numerous Governments who support the Red side in Spain have decided that volunteers going to Spain are to be nationalised there. This may make it a little more difficult to arrive at a general plan of dealing with the matter but perhaps a solution may be found if all those people who go to Spain are nationalised there and kept there for good. If they are not allowed to return from Spain to their own countries it may prove a deterrent to others. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his speech to-day. I think the House will agree that it was a detached statement, which reached the highest standard and that it was a fair message to the world. If we are anxious to help the cause of peace and end this awful bloodshed in a country so near to us, then I submit we must all support the policy of His Majesty's Government.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Grenfell: I am sure the House will re-echo the last sentence of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), but I wish to dissent most


strongly from some of the other statements which he made in the course of his speech. He declared that he was against intervention in Spain and he went on to emphasise the necessity for being honest in this matter. I would remind him that there is another essential in dealing with this question and that is consistency and the hon. and gallant Member must pardon us for recalling the fact that he was a very strong interventionist in regard to affairs in Russia in 1920. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then was one of the worst enemies in this House of the Russian people in their efforts to find freedom. Nobody intervened more frequently in debates in the House than he did with malicious attacks upon Russia. I think that is within the memory of many Members in the House and it hardly lies with the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make some of the statements which he made in regard to Spain.
He said that there had been a general election in Spain but that it had not been decisive. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had listened to the statements made by other Members of the House to-day he must have known that there was interference with the course of that election by the Government which was then in power in Spain and that was not the Government which ultimately came into office as a result of the election. It was a wonderful thing in the circumstances that the new Government obtained power in Spain by such a majority as a result of that election. It secured an overwhelming parliamentary majority as a result of that election and if constitutional government means anything it means that that Government has the right to govern. The Spanish Government which was thus elected proceeded to exercise the authority given to it by the people of Spain. It is true that there were dissentients. It is true that the Government was faced by irreconcilable opponents. It is true that Spain has been living in a condition of great strain and turmoil for many years. That is ancient history and I do not think that the interests of this House will be served by trying to present partial views of the history of the last five years or the last 50 years in Spain.
The fact remains that that Government was properly constituted and I do not think it wise to base a Debate of this kind upon partial statements even of Englishmen. Englishmen have been known to err in their estimates of political conditions and I submit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman really did a disservice to the House by his reference to the murder of Calvo Sotelo in Madrid. The fact is that that followed within 24 hours of the murder of Lieutenant Castello who was a very influential Socialist in Madrid. First a Socialist was murdered, and then a Fascist was murdered. Then came the trouble in Spain. The hon. and gallant Member has given us a very hurried résumé of the military activities there. He said that General Franco was stopped at the gates of Madrid, or in Madrid itself, and that since that time General Franco has not been able to make any military progress. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is a soldier himself, and other hon. and gallant Members opposite—I am not a soldier—whether they will explain to me and to the House why, if General Franco really had the Spanish people behind him and if he really managed to seduce 80 per cent. of the Spanish Army, which is not denied, he has not won the battle long ago. I think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to show either that General Franco has not got a large proportion of the Spanish people behind him or that the Spanish Government have had much more devotion, enthusiasm, and courage on their side. If the figures given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are to be relied upon, the numbers should count in Franco's favour, but he has made no military progress at all, and I think the explanation must be found in some other direction.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that men and armaments were pouring into Spain through the French frontiers day and night, but he knows very well that even though trains ran along that long and tortuous railway from France to the South of Spain, one or two shiploads a week would carry far more than the capacity of the railway, and he knows that many ships went in direct from Germany and from Italy in the very first weeks of the war and that General Franc found himself with an overwhelming superiority in arms, which accounted for his initial successes and did not represent


the political situation, the balance of political forces, in Spain. Therefore, I do not think we should attach too much importance to the hurried history which has been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to-night.
I would like to deal with some of the evidence given by people who claim to be eye-witnesses. I was an eye-witness on one side only in Spain, and I speak in the presence of hon. Members with whom I went to Spain. We made our investigations with a complete desire to arrive at the truth. Before I left this country I was imbued with the desire to learn the truth, and I came back believing that we had made earnest and diligent search for the truth all the time we were there. I came to certain conclusions about certain facts. I had been told a story, before I left this House, which moved me to go to Spain. If nothing else would have taken me to Spain, that story of an incident at Toledo would have done so. One hon. Member opposite spoke of Toledo to-night, but not one word did he say about the incident at the hospital there. He said he had been there, but had he made inquiries?
We heard the same story upstairs, when a war correspondent came back from Spain to tell Members of this House of certain incidents in this war in Spain and requested Members of this House to send a delegation, a representative body, a mixed commission—call it what you like—an unofficial body, to go to Spain to see for themselves. His story set out the conditions in Toledo and told how, when the Spanish Government militia was retreating from Toledo, there were three hospitals there. They evacuated two, but the third hospital they failed to evacuate, though they withdrew the female nurses. They left that third hospital in the care of a doctor, with between 400 and 500 sick and wounded people. The Moors came up to the hospital and the doctor came to the door and defied them. He was shot dead. The Moors entered the hospital, and with hand grenades and revolver shots killed every orderly and patient. That has not been denied. It has been said over and over again. It was said by the newspaper correspondent upstairs and it has been stated over and over again in the Press. It has not been denied. Why did not the hon. Member refer to the

correspondents? He took his evidence from war correspondents. Did they mention that to him in Spain? If not, why did he not ask them about it, having already heard of the incident upstairs?
The hon. Member has convinced me that, although I respect him very much as a Member of this House, he is the worst investigator I would send anywhere after his speech to-night. He has convinced me that he has accepted the word of people whose business it was to confuse his mind. Time and again in his speech he said that he knew all about the conditions in Madrid, where he was not. He knew the kind of rifle ammunition and based that judgment on a few barrels of ammunition that he had seen somewhere. The hon. Gentleman knew the number and nationality of the soldiers and mentioned that they were using a certain type of rifle. Did he know that from officers on Franco's side? What kind of investigation did he conduct to ascertain whether all the information supplied to him could be relied upon at all?

Mr. Crossley: The hon. Member is referring to me as an investigator, and perhaps I may give him the basis of my investigations. I do not speak Spanish, but I met a number of English people. I also met one or two representatives of foreign organisations, one of whom was from the League of Nations on a charitable mission. I was able to talk to these people. I have certainly put nothing before the House which is uncorroborated evidence on the part of my Spanish friends, and I believe that I am justified in taking as prima facie sound evidence the evidence of the newspaper reporters who were sent by reputable newspapers.

Mr. Grenfell: That seems to confirm what I have said. The hon. Member says that he is entitled to rely upon the evidence of war correspondents. Why, then, did he go to Spain? Why did he not read in the newspapers in a language which he understands the reports of the war correspondents on which he relies so much? Everything else has been wasted on him. He has not been able to read the Spanish newspapers or converse with any Spaniard. He has taken information from English people who were biased, and expects the House to take second and third-hand testimony which is not


to be relied upon at all. The hon. Member said that he saw any amount of German ammunition, tanks and aeroplanes. He must have been told that they were German munitions and have taken the word of some people who led him about knowing that they could tell him anything with the assurance that he would later report it in the House.

Mr. Crossley: I can see with my own eyes what a thing is, and I can read German writing. I am not, as the Germans say, "dumm."

Mr. Grenfell: I do not deny his eyesight, but it must have been very good if he saw all this. He was on the wrong side of the line. If he had been on the Government side he would have had a chance with his eyes, but he was miles away on another front, and how could he see what was happening on the Government side? I was on the Madrid front and I challenge hon. Members who were there with me to tell the House what we saw on the other front. And my eyesight is quite good. I do not dare to speak of the details of Franco's army, because I do not know them, and I do not know of the conditions of the civilian population under Franco. I only speak of what I saw and if the hon. Member had confined himself to telling us what he had seen I should not have spent so much time examining his speech. He said there were certain troops who were very good, the so-called Carlists were good and that the Fascists were not so good, and I am not surprised at that. Do the Fascist troops belong to Spain? I do not know. The hon. Member said there were no volunteers on Franco's side. I can assure him that I saw some men who were said to be prisoners. I spoke to them in very bad Italian. There was an Italian prisoner in Madrid who gave full details of his experience on the Franco front. This man had come from the 156th Artillery regiment at Rome, with six guns, embarked at Geneva, spent five or six days at sea, and found himself on the front at Madrid. He drove his motor bicycle carelessly over his own lines and into the Government lines and was taken prisoner. He admitted all this.
We saw an Italian airman who told me that he came for adventure and that it had been a very great sadness to him, because he had lost his leg and was in

hospital. He said that he was not a regular soldier but a flyer who had been serving and had met with this mishap and had suffered seriously. Those are instances of two Italians to whom I spoke. They were Italian soldiers captured on the Madrid front by the Government forces. I do not know how many others there are and it would be folly on my part to suggest that I do. Then the hon. Member spoke about Franco's future. He is not only able to describe what he has not seen but is also able to give the world the benefit of his prophetic vision. That ought not to pass muster in this House. The hon. Member must try again and next time go somewhere else not so important. To come home with a report of this kind after a visit to Spain is not the right way to treat the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Mitchell) also went to Spain. I understand he has had some military training. He spoke of the conditions behind General Franco's line and said, "There is absolute law and order." Those are very strong words; he could not have chosen stronger. I simply cannot believe it. I have read history. There must be some discontented people on the other side, some who ought to be restrained—unless they are all dead. If there is absolute law and order on the Franco side will he explain how it has been established in such a short time, under the conditions of civil war? Is the Toledo incident true? If it is true, then are we to assume that all the killings which the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) admitted had taken place on General Franco's side took place upon orders from General Franco? Yes, that would be the position. If there is absolute law and order, any killings must have taken place in accordance with instructions.

Mr. Mitchell: When I used the expression "absolute law and order" I naturally applied it to the country behind the lines. I never suggested there was absolute law and order on the battlefield, or that incidents may not have taken place at Toledo. He said a lot about Toledo. May I ask him whether he was ever in Toledo and has first hand evidence of what took place, or whether he has spoken to anyone actually in the hospital when what he described occurred?

Mr. Grenfell: Does the hon. Member deny that story? Can he find any authority which will support him in a denial?

Mr. Mitchell: I certainly deny that story. As my hon. Friend knows, that story has been denied publicly in the Press of this country. It has been said that that particular hospital was filled with cowardly militiamen who, rather than fight or surrender, took refuge in the hospital, and that is the reason why the massacre took place. If that is true it is a very different thing from what the hon. Member has told us.

Mr. Grenfell: There are two hon. Members who have been to Toledo, and they did not take the House into their confidence about an incident of such importance as that. They gave so much praise to General Franco; why did they not remove this charge?

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that I have removed it now.

Mr. Grenfell: The hon. Member stated that there was law and order behind the lines in the country. It does not apply to the country but to the people, and if the people behind the lines obey law and order there must be some tremendous authority and all dissentients must have been removed. I am convinced that there have been terrible atrocities on both sides. Charges have been made by two hon. Members. Having been to Madrid I should say that the greatest atrocity I could conceive would be bringing up guns within that city and sending as many as 16 bombing aeroplanes at a time, twice a day or by night, to bomb defenceless people. That is atrocity enough. If hon. Members have seen that elsewhere, I say that it is atrocity wherever it is.
I believe that this is not a civil war in Spain; that would not be a right description. I heard a lot of charges when I was in Madrid. We saw damaged churches in Barcelona and Valencia. On the first day that I went to Madrid I was asked to receive a Protestant parson who talked to us for about an hour and Left a large pile of documents giving details about the murder of Protestant priests. I do not deny that. A gentleman told me that the Catholics had behaved as they did at the time of the Inquisition. He said that the Inquisition was

back again in all its intolerance, violence and cruelty. There are the two sides. I tried to be as impartial as I could. Such religious issues will be raised in this country on the slightest provocation. It is part of our trouble in this country that we have religious rivalries and hatreds, I am sorry to say, and that sort of thing must arise in Spain.
It is not a class war; that is not a complete description. There are elements of class struggle in Spain, but I met Spaniards of the aristocracy and the governing classes who were devoted to the cause of the Government. It is not a struggle between classes of people or between the intelligentsia and the workers. I think the cause of the struggle is that the overwhelming majority of the people to whom I tried to speak are fighting for what we enjoy in this House, freedom and constitutional liberty, which has been won. The Spanish people believe that they have come within reach of that, and they want to hold on to it. They are fighting and dying, and suffering much, in the hope that in the end they will attain liberty. It is true that Spaniards are fighting Spaniards, but on both sides foreigners are fighting also. The largest number of the international brigade in front of Madrid are Germans. The English folk are few. These foreigners in the international brigade are fighting for an ideal. I went one night through the hotel where we were staying, and saw a crowd of people from the international brigade resting there. Germans and French spoke to me, and I answered them in bad German or French.
Then a coloured man rose from a table and said, "Can you speak English?" He said he spoke every language—"You cannot name a single language I cannot speak." I spoke a sentence in Welsh to him, and knocked him out. That black man, 62 years of age, who had no business to be in Spain, made me think of George Bernard Shaw's "Black Girl in Search of God." I thought that here was a black man in search of his god—liberty. I shall always retain a warm affection for him, for he believed that he was fighting for the liberty of the black man as well as of the white. It is said that the Russians took charge in Spain soon after the election. I do not know. I am sure there is not one Russian fighting on the Madrid front. I


made inquiries, I spoke to war correspondents, I read every Spanish newspaper I could, I spoke to all sorts of people. The nephew of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is the best known Englishman in Spain. There is not one word in the Spanish Press about Russians. I did not hear a word of Russian spoken. I asked an English airman, and other people whom I could trust, and they said there were Russian aviators flying aeroplanes over Madrid, but there were no other Russians fighting near Madrid.
If we are going to teach the Spaniards, or the world, to believe that Spanish liberty has been won by Germans or Russians, is that going to be a good thing for Spain? The thing that must be good for Spain is for the Spanish people to believe that they are without assistance or interference from other countries. I should have been for non-intervention if it had been fully carried out from the beginning; I am for it now if it is fully carried out; but I agree with my hon. Friends that it is no use carrying on a farce, and, really, it is a farce. Let me say why I believe that we must do something very much stronger than we have done before we can rid ourselves of this farce, which is bringing mockery on Europe, on the League of Nations, on everyone associated with international affairs. The House will remember that in July, iii, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was put up by a Liberal administration, in an attempt to preserve European peace, to tell the German Reich of that time that they must withdraw a small third-class cruiser, the "Panther," which had put into Agadir, or there would immediately be a European war. Morocco was important to German imperialism in 1911; it is infinitely more valuable to the Germany of to-day, which, having been thwarted in its adventure in the East, is going to take advantage of the internal confusion in Spain to send her troops and her surplus material to Spain in order to secure the richest imperialistic prize of the last few decades at a bargain price. She is there on an imperial mission, and will stay there until she has found that people object to it.
Does anyone believe that the Germans would hold on so tenaciously unless there

was something to be gained at the end? It has been said by one hon. Member that in due time they will all clear away and go back nicely, but does he really believe that? Does anyone believe it? Is there any statesman in Europe who believes that they will go willingly, if they go at all? I would say to the right hon. Gentleman and those who want to safeguard the peace of Europe that you cannot keep the peace of Europe if you give ground all the way to the Nazis and Fascists. You cannot have it on those terms; it is not the kind of thing that they understand. I do not want to speak in terms of war, but I am sure that what remains in Europe of peace-loving forces must be got together again. If the League is to attract them together the intimation must be given that there is within the League of Nations a body, a nucleus, strong enough to hold the peace-loving nations together in opposition to those who will risk all, even a European war, in an attempt to win conquest in this way. I believe the time has come for that, and I am sure that no other remedy will serve.
The right hon. Gentleman himself said something to the House to which I must refer, and which the Noble Lord who is to follow me might make clear. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were going to stop recruitment because it had been found to be illegal. If no anxious mother had written a letter, if no disappointed or deluded boy had complained, Englishmen might go out in as large numbers as they chose, but, the right hon. Gentleman's attention having been called to it, and he having consulted his still more careful legal friend, they had to apply the law. We cannot accept that; really, it is too thin a case to put before this House; they must think of something else, because both the legal representative of the Government and the Foreign Secretary himself must know that they have ignored the fundamental law which gave the Spanish Government its rights. They have overlooked that, and they go on boggling over the smaller law. This influx of trained men from Germany and Italy into Spain must be stopped, but it cannot be right to stop volunteers from one side only. That would mean stopping volunteers from France and elsewhere while the Germans are sending their trained divisions to win victory over the Spanish people.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. Grenfell: I am extremely anxious that this war in Spain, with all that it entails, should be brought to an end. We have spoken of the balancing of military forces. We have not mentioned the one ever-present spectre that has remained with me from the time that I went to Spain. I believe there will be a shortage of food on a very large scale. I am convinced that hundreds of thousands of people—I cannot estimate the number—may easily die from famine in the next few months. Transport is disorganised and food is being held up over large areas and the situation is terrible in the extreme. I want the right hon. Gentleman to ask the League of Nations to make a pronouncement on this. I should like the League of Nations to make a demand on Germany and Italy that they should refrain from further Government assistance. I am sure there is power enough in the French Government and here at home, if we apply it, to stop the heavy supplies of material and large numbers of men on Spanish soil who are going to prolong the war and cause inconceivable misery before it is finished. I should like to see non-intervention carried into effect. The people of Europe must realise that this kind of intervention must lead to war. Then, peace having been restored, and Spain left to herself, the poverty and economic dislocation which is manifest in every European State must be tackled. I will subscribe to every word the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I hope, having treated the House of Commons to a very lofty appeal, he will make an equally lofty and straight-forward appeal to the League of Nations itself.

11.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): There have not been any radical alterations in the situation since my right hon.

Friend addressed the House before the Christmas Recess. I think that some of us wish that there had been, but there have not. In fact, this Debate is not one of those which we sometimes have arising from critical events in some foreign country, but it has come merely from the very natural desire of the House to have the very latest information. They knew that my right hon. Friend was leaving for Geneva and they wanted him, before he left, to give them the stop-press news. He has given the stop-press news, and he has given it very fully, and there is not really a great deal that I can add to what he has said. Moreover, not many new points have been made during the Debate.
I do not know what has struck other Members, but it has struck me that it is the most biased Debate I have ever heard. I do not think that there has been a single speech which has not started from a parti pris. Some hon. Members have said, "I hate Communism," and others, "I hate Fascism." On that they have based not merely their arguments, but their facts. There have been one or two exceptions. The speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) was an exception. In his views he was, as he always is, scrupulously fair in debate. There have been other cases. I think the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. H. Mitchell) was a very fair speech. It is remarkable that both are Members who have actually been on the spot and have seen the facts for themselves, which some others have not had an opportunity of doing. Members of His Majesty's Government, whatever other Members may do, cannot afford the luxury of extravagance of language or action. Melodramatic phrases may be very attractive, but they are very often not very wise, and the same applies to melodramatic action.

Mr. Maxton: And it is the same with romanticism.

Viscount Cranborne: I think that if on occasion the action of His Majesty's Government is not sufficiently spectacular in the view of some Members, that does not necessarily prove that it was not right. My right hon. Friend in what he said at the start of the Debate, as was perhaps inevitable, devoted himself principally to the affairs of Spain. There were, however, one or two other questions raised in


the Debate, and perhaps it will be convenient for the House if I say a word or two upon them now. There was a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) with reference to Germany. The right hon. Gentleman said that for the co-operation of Germany in the community of nations disarmament, in his opinion, would be a requirement. I think that the right hon. Gentleman added that there should be agreement to submit disputes to third party judgment. It was a mere omission by my right hon. Friend and I think there is no difference of view between the two right hon. Gentlemen on that point. Then there is the question of the Anglo-Italian agreement of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness disapproves, or at least I understood him to disapprove of it, rather strongly. He made great play with an interview by Signor Mussolini given to a newspaper in which he fiercely attacked democracy, and he was shocked by this, and said that we ought not to come to any form of agreement with him. I would only like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, although he was so shocked, his remarks on this particular interview came in the middle of a most extreme attack he was making upon Fascism, and he was absolutely unbridled in what he said. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is to be tolerance there must be tolerance on both sides.

Sir A. Sinclair: I spoke of Mussolini's intolerance.

Viscount Cranborne: Because the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Mussolini is intolerant that is no reason why he should be intolerant. If the right hon. Gentleman wants Signor Mussolini to be mild while it is open to Communists and others to ramp and rail against Fascism, that will not make for tolerance in the world. He complains of the Anglo-Italian agreement. It is an agreement which has been welcomed by the French Government, the Turkish Government, the Yugoslav Government—a very important Government—and the Greek Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no interest in the agreement at all.
The main debate inevitably centres on the Spanish question. If I am asked

whether we are satisfied with the situation in Spain, I reply that we are not. Nobody in their senses would be satisfied with the situation. As long as this trouble goes on and as long as there is intervention, there can be no satisfaction for any of us. The right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. 'Attlee), who opened the attack on the Government, complained that the Government always treat both parties as equals in Spain. He quoted a speech in which M. Blum said last December that there was only one legal Government in Spain and that the other was not a legal Government.

Mr. Attlee: He said there was only one legal Government.

Viscount Cranborne: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has read a more recent utterance of M. Blum. Here is a statement made on 15th December in introducing the Bill in regard to volunteers. He said that although the Bill might offend some by placing the Spanish Government and the insurgents on the same plane, the essential thing was to save Europe from war, and that was only possible if Spain ceased to be the goal of alternating migrations. Therefore M. Blum is treating both parties on the same plane in the Bill. He has learnt during these months to look at essential realities, but the right hon. Gentleman and his party have learnt nothing. They are like the Bourbons, if not worse. That is what is wrong with them. They are utterly and completely divorced from realities.
We have been blamed by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland for the Anglo-Italian agreement, and the right hon. Member for Limehouse also blamed the Government for the German naval agreement, although it actually led to a limitation of armaments which would not have been got otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman was not concerned with the result of that agreement. What annoyed him was that we should have made any agreement with Herr Hitler. That is not common sense. The main thing is to get limitation of armaments and to that purpose the Government are devoting their attention.
Much as we admire and respect the right hon. Gentleman, I must say he did


not show at his best this afternoon, and suggest that he should emulate M. Blum, judge by experience and look at the facts; and then, I am sure, he will come to a different conclusion. At any rate, M. Blum has modified his views, and with the views he expressed on Saturday His Majesty's Government are in perfect agreement. The Government's view has been made clear so often that I do not wish to emphasise it again. We think that the Spanish civil war is a matter for the people of Spain, a matter of internal policy, and that no other nation ought to be concerned in it at all. We believe that in this view we have the support of the overwhelming mass of British public opinion, and that our policy is in complete harmony with British policy in the past. It is often said that if you are to come to a wise decision you must look not only at the present but at the experience of the past. May I quote one or two passages from a State paper written early in the 19th century by Lord Castlereagh, when he was Foreign Minister, relating to events which were then happening in Spain? The situation then was oddly enough not very different from what it is to-day. The army had revolted against the Spanish Government. Some foreign Powers were anxious to intervene, principally Russia and to a certain extent Prussia, and they were anxious to carry Great Britain with them. This is what Lord Castlereagh said in advising a policy of non-intervention:
In this country at all times, but especially at the present juncture when the whole energy of the State is required to unite reasonable men in the defence of our existing institutions. … it is of the greatest moment that the public sentiment should not be distracted or divided by any unnecessary interference of the Government in events passing abroad over which they can have none, or at best but very imperfect means of control.
That is the situation to-day. He also said:
What could the Allied Powers look to effect by their arms, if the supposition of an armed interference in the internal affairs of another nation could be admitted? Perhaps little: Because in supposing them finally triumphant, we have the problem still to solve, how the country in which such interference had been successful was to provide for its self government after the Allied armies shall have been withdrawn.
That is the case against non-intervention to-day. They are wise words and will command agreement in all parts of the House, and they represent the views of

the Government. Spain, if we can possibly organise it, must be allowed to work out her own destiny. We shall continue our efforts. Hon. Members opposite have suggested no alternative, All they have said it that something must be done, and they wisely stop there.

Mr. Grenfell: Speaking for myself, I say that if there is to be aggression in Europe in one country after another, this country should take its courage in its hands and do its utmost to stop it. I believe that we should tell Germany and Italy that they must not commit these acts of aggression against the Spanish Government.

Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Member did not really ask a question. What he said was that we ought to do something, and tell the Germans they must do it; but if the result meant war, would the hon. Gentleman and his friends follow that course of action? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes!"] The Government did not think that to involve Europe in war at the present time would be justifiable. If intervention by this country might involve war, would hon. Members opposite take that action?

Mr. Attlee: The point I made, and to which the Noble Lord has not replied, is that during the whole of this period, while professing to stand for non-intervention, the Government have allowed intervention by the Fascist powers throughout, with the result that the danger of war is as great as it was.

Viscount Cranborne: I am afraid that is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government are allowing intervention. What I asked was, If it were necessary, in order to stop intervention, even to have recourse to war, would the right hon. Gentleman and his friends go to war?

Mr. Attlee: In a situation such as we are in at present, there is a danger of war. Is it the view of the Government that the danger of war is so great that on every occasion they should do precisely what Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini want, because of the danger of war?

Viscount Cranborne: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question. The right hon. Gentleman has not got an answer to my question, and therefore adopts the very old dodge of asking me one.

Mr. Attlee: I have stated again and again in this House that we recognise that there is a danger of war that has to be faced. Any Government may have to face it. I stated quite plainly that these dangers must be faced, and that if you are never prepared to stand up to them, you will be running all the time, and you will run into war. Is there any occasion on which the Government are prepared to take a risk of war, and will they obey all the orders of Hitler and Mussolini?

Viscount Cranborne: In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower said that he personally would be willing to go to war. He did not tie anybody but himself. I put the question to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Attlee: Is there any occasion on which the Government—

Viscount Cranborne: I asked my question first, and I have had no answer.

Mr. Attlee: I am not going to allow the Noble Lord to get away with that. I stated plainly this afternoon that I believe that the democratic States have to stand together. I recognised there was a danger of war. I said the time has come when you must not run away the whole time, but must face a danger. I now ask the Government whether there is any occasion on which they will face a danger.

Viscount Cranborne: There are occasions, of course, but the Government equally made their position absolutely clear in this matter. They have said the Spanish dispute is an internal affair of the people of Spain, and the Government's object is to prevent it spreading beyond the borders of Spain. That has been the Government's policy throughout, and I say again that it is a policy which has the complete support of the people of this country.

Mr. Attlee: Do I understand that whatever happens, no matter whether Mussolini laughs at you and continues to go on, he can be quite sure you will never stand up to him?

Viscount Cranborne: I will proceed to deal with other main points which have been raised. There is the question of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which has undoubtedly aroused strong feelings among

certain sections in this country. My right hon. Friend has explained fully the circumstances in which the Government took their action and I believe that those are circumstances which fully justify that action. There was definite evidence that young boys and other people who were going to Spain were being enlisted for that purpose in direct violation of the existing law, and it was for that reason that the Government found themselves obliged to take action.

Mr. Maxton: When the hon. Gentleman refers to these young boys, is he aware that all these fellows going to Spain are over the age at which people are accepted for recruitment in the British Army.

Viscount Cranborne: Many of them are minors. I have been astonished, and I think some other people may have been astonished, at the intense anxiety of hon. Members opposite on this question. I understand they say that this recruiting is essential to the preservation of democracy or at least important to the preservation of democracy. That is certainly a view which has been expressed by some hon. Members, though I would not say that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has done so. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite who express that view, draw a direct distinction between recruitment for the services of democracy abroad and at home. We have had quite a number of Debates lately on recruitment at home and I have never heard a single hon. Member opposite make such an appeal on those occasions. I must confess that it is odd—remarkably odd—because, after all, England is a democracy, and the appeal for recruits at home is made by a democratically-elected Government; and the only conclusion to which I can come is that hon. Members opposite who take that view have a different method of defining democracy. Louis XIV is supposed to have said "L'Etat, c'est moi." It is possible that hon. Members opposite take a similar view and that the Leader of the Opposition would say, "Demos, that's me," and that that is the only sort of democracy in which he believes. But the complete lack of logic which we see in their convictions does undoubtedly detract from the force of their arguments.
In conclusion, I would say, to return to the main issue of the Debate—the main


issue, not the only important matter—that in the Government's opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of the country, the policy of non-intervention has been fully justified. We regret as bitterly as any hon. Member opposite that the policy has not been more completely carried out. But we still think that the policy which was initiated by the French Government, and firmly supported by His Majesty's Government, has prevented the spread of the war into other parts of Europe. M. Blum said in the Chamber of Deputies on 15th January, in the course of the speech from which I have already quoted, that the action of the French Government in introducing their Bill was proof of their desire for peace and their readiness to do everything possible to

prevent the Spanish trouble from producing a general conflagration; and in response to his appeal he received, as hon. Members know, the unanimous support of the French Chamber. The motives which have inspired, and will continue to inspire, every action of His Majesty's Government with regard to this dispute are the same as those which have inspired the French Government, and they hope with confidence that they may receive in this House, and, with even more confidence, in the country, an overwhelming measure of support for the policy which they have adopted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven.